►
From YouTube: W1 Stewards Council: WGs funding proposals
Description
🙏 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
A
It
for
what
this
funding
is
for
what
we're
supposed
to
do
so
juan
carlos,
because
I
can
see
you
I'd
like
you
to
read
the
mission
and
then
maybe
you
pass
to
someone
else
to
read
the
vision
and
pass
to
someone
else
to
read
the
values.
C
D
Well,
that's
a
short
one.
Division
enable
the
creation
of
ethical,
safe,
resilient
and
diverse
economic
system
to
benefit
societies
around
the
world
and
I
think
it's
fit.
I
will
pass
it
on
to
libby
for
the
values.
E
Our
commons
operates
from
a
pro-social
human-centered
perspective
and
prioritizes
the
advancement
of
token
engineering
over
short-term
profits,
integrity,
curiosity,
constructive
inquiry
presence
and
gratitude
are
foundational
for
maintaining
mutual
respect
within
our
growing
community.
We
encourage
our
members
to
be
radically
open
source,
non-hierarchical,
transparent
in
their
intentions
and
accountable
for
their
actions.
A
Nice,
it's
almost
like
a
religious
ceremony.
Wasn't
it
or
is
it
just
me,
it's
very
nice
to
hear
all
right
cool,
so
I
want
to
ask
if
all
of
the
working
group
leads
can
drop
their
drafts
for
their
working
group
funding
in
this
section
here,
just
so
that
we
can
share
them.
Everyone
has
a
chance
to
to
look
at
them
as
we
talk
about
them
today.
A
Now
I
thought
of
a
few
ways
about
how
we
could
possibly
structure
this
conversation
to
facilitate
dialogue
around
working
groups,
and
I
think
the
way
I
think
might
be
the
most
helpful
is,
if
we
just
start
with
going
around
and
having
everyone
present
in
this
call
actually,
but
especially,
the
working
group
leads
who
have
spent
time
and
are
sort
of
thinking
about
it
and
trying
to
figure
out
the
right
structure
for
their
for
the
funding
of
their
working
group
share
their.
A
What
they
think
are
the
considerations
around
what
they
had
tried
to
think
about
some
things
that
they
might
have
observed
that
they
haven't
figured
out
and
other
considerations
around.
Just
anything
that
comes
to
mind
when,
when
we're
building
these
these
funding
proposals-
and
I
would
maybe
set
a
timer
for
two
minutes
each-
but
this
is-
I
don't
want
this
to
be
rushed.
A
So
if
you
need
more
time,
maybe
just
note-
and
we
can
reset
it
for
another
minute
or
two,
and
I'm
really,
I
thought
what
olivia
you
said
yesterday
in
the
meeting
in
the
stewards
meeting
really
sparked
some
interest
for
me.
So
it's
okay.
May
I
ask
that
you
get
this
round
started.
E
Yeah
sure,
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
put
anything.
I
didn't
write
down
anything
because
it
feels
like
there's
not
much
to
write
down,
but
I
can
do
that
along
this
meeting.
If
you
think
it's
important,
but
the
idea
is
just
to
use
the
framings
that
we
have
building
for
rewarding
contributors
so
using
the
reward
systems.
E
Hopefully
we'll
have
this
combination
of
praise
and
source
credit
and
alexandra
up
and
running,
and
then
meetings,
subjective
contributions
and
objective
contributions
that
happen
in
the
day
by
day
can
all
be.
E
Tracked
and
rewarded
by
the
system,
and
then
if
there
is
something
that
needs
a
specific
and
a
specific
amount
of
funds
like
let's
say
we
need
to
develop
some
type
of
product
or
tool.
Then
we
make
a
proposal
for
for
the
dao,
with
a
very
specific
outline
following
the
proposal
template
with
the
needed
amount
of
funds
and
what
are
the
outputs
and
all
of
that.
And
then,
if
the
dow
agrees
to
it,
then
that
work
would
be
developed
within
the
working
group,
but
using
those
funds.
E
We
brought
up
in
the
retrospective
two
of
this
balance
between
foundational
and
structural
work
with
token
engineering
work.
So
how
to
be
mindful
of
the
need
of
the
funds
we
are
applying
and
how
they
are
affecting
the
functioning
of
the
whole
and
how
they
are
supporting
token
engineering
projects
to.
F
A
B
Thank
livi.
I
lead
the
comms
working
group
and
I'll
add
our
proposal
to
our
draft.
I'm
sorry
to
the
to
the
link
I'll
pass
it
to
funka.
A
A
I
was
just
thinking
it
felt
really
nice
to
hear
it
again,
and
maybe
it
was
a
good
starting
point
for
remembering
what
we're
doing
all
of
this
for
and
what
the
funding
is
for
and
then
I
I
thought
which
actually
ties
in
nicely
to
what
you
just
said:
livia
and
then
what
I'm,
what
we're
going
to
start
with
sort
of
a
round
going
around,
where
everyone
can
basically
share
considerations
that
either,
if
you're
a
working
group
lead
considerations
that
you
yourself
have
come
have
have
surfaced
or
have
have
observed.
A
When
you
were
writing
the
proposal
or
if
you're,
not
a
working
group
lead,
and
you
didn't
work
on
a
proposal,
just
some
considerations
that
you
think
maybe
we
should
be
mindful
when
taking
into
account
funding
for
working
groups
and
I'm
going
to
set
a
timer
for
two
minutes
for
everyone,
for
everyone
is
that,
should
I
pass
back
to
you
chewie.
B
Yeah
sure,
okay,
okay,
so
for
for
comms,
we
have
like
a
I.
B
I
feel
that
we
have
like
a
a
really
unique
perspective,
because
it's
it's
also
like
about
like
contributors
right,
so
I
go
back
in
my
own
experience
to
what
most
of
the
time
goes
wrong
with
like
advertising
like
agencies
and
since
comes
is,
is
part
of
like
some
of
some
functions
that
could
be
considered
that,
like
services
that
can
be
provided,
I
I
feel
that
we
have
like
a
really
well.
B
I
I
take
like
the
commitment
very
seriously
right
to
make
our
our
cultural
build,
be
reflected
on
on
how
we
educate,
let's
say
and
and
and
guide
these
this
contributor
to
to
be
able
to
like
engage
with
with
different
token
engineering
projects
and
be
able
to
provide
like
com
services.
So
I
I
definitely
feel
that
it's
it's
a
challenge.
B
The
most
of
these
contributors
come
from
a
very
like
unfair
industry,
and-
and
I
feel
that
this
has
to
be
taken
in
account
for
for
funding,
so
I
I
I
wanted
to
give
you
like
this
this
context
in
in
this
background,
because
I
feel
that
there
yeah
there
are
definitely
some
some
details
that
we
need
to
take
care
of
for
being
able
to
to
provide
this
cultural
bill
to
to
to
new
contributors
that
can
also
be
related
to
other
projects.
C
Okay,
thanks
chewie,
I
I
don't
have
like
a
google
doc
just
for
it.
It's
in
the
in
the
gravity.
Working
group
call
notes,
so
I
am
going
to
use
that
link
and
maybe
create
a
like
a
new
one
for
this,
but
like
the
idea,
I
I
think
that
I
have
like
one
raw
idea
and
maybe
like
two
split
ideas
so
like
the
raw
idea
is
to
become
a
gardens.
C
I
think
that
would
be
good
to
have
a
way
to
have
a
reputation
system
and
also
to
manage
funds,
and
I
liked
by
vice
idea
he
wrote
it
in
the
discord.
I
I
can
share
my
screen
so
that
you,
you
know,
know
what
I'm
talking
about.
C
C
Moreover,
this
allows
us
to
have
a
place
to
build
reputation,
receive
stats
with
help
which
can
help
us
reach
more
dows,
and
I
have
like
a
list
of
prices
like
as
services
that
I
think
that
can
be
like
offered,
and
it's
like
setting
up
your
organizational
gravity.
C
Make
making
tailored
gravity.
Graviton
trainings
to
organizations
have
like
a
yearly
insurance
for
an
organization
like
that
yeah
that
will
cover
the
fees
of
managing
the
conflicts
through
one
year
and
also
a
monthly
insurance
and
managing
one
case
external
to
the
organization
800
that
it's
like
a
very
raw
idea.
A
Cool
thanks
for
sharing
that
wonka.
I
I
guess
when
you
have
a
chance,
maybe
you
could
just
pull
it
out
into
a
separate
dock
and
drop
it
in
here
or
if
you
want
to
just
drop
the
notes
in
there.
Maybe
we
could
sift
through
there
to
find
them,
but
yeah.
It's
thanks
for
thanks
for
sharing
that
and
then
do
you
want
to
pass
to
another
working.
G
G
Okay,
thanks
tom
yeah,
we
basically
put
the
time
we're
putting
on
on
transparency
and
then
yeah.
We
just
put
an
average
our
cost
like,
for
example,
like
recordings.
You
can
do,
recording
and
be
doing
something
else,
so
this
is
cheaper
than
you
know,
average
hours
and
yeah.
This
is
more
or
less
what
we
drafted,
so
it
would
be
like
between
700
800
died
a
week
and
yeah.
G
H
H
We
have
other
options,
if
would
need
more
funding,
but
the
the
first
proposal
is
taking
into
consideration
zepty,
but
if
there
will
be
more
contributors
joining
us
and
this
only
based
on
what
we're
currently
doing
yeah,
if
if
there
would
be
more
tasks
in
the
future,
so
yeah,
we
might
change
this
proposal
and
we
also
put
there
that
when,
if
there
will
be
unused
budget,
let's
say
we
receive
a
funding
from
the
dow
and
then
there
will
be
unused
budget.
H
We
will
carry
it
over
to
the
next
wholesaler
to
the
next
cycle
and
then
we'll
be
requesting
less
fun.
If,
since
we
already,
we
still
have
a
remaining
budget,
so
that's.
E
A
A
I
see
so
this
is
the
budget
for
transparency,
no
matter
how
many
people
are
in
the
transparency
working
group.
So
this
is
the
this
is
the
funding
for
the
transparency
working
group,
regardless
of
how
many
people
are
in
the
transparency
working
group,
I
mean.
C
G
A
G
A
I
think
it's
helpful
if
that
was
really,
if
you
somehow
could
specify
that-
and
also
I
don't
know,
if
you're
planning
to
do
a
vote
every
week,
but
perhaps
put
this
figure
into
the
form
of
what
it'll
be
on
the
proposal.
So
if
it's
one
month
or
three
months,
maybe
creating
the
the
total
of
the
total
value
of
the
proposal
that
you'll
be
using
might
be
helpful
too.
Okay,.
G
Yeah
we
were
thinking
on
doing
it
monthly.
You
know,
since
you
know,
if
someone's
new
comes
to
the
working
group-
and
you
know
it
starts,
to
put
time,
do
not
you
know,
I
don't
mind,
for
example,
for
myself
like
get
delayed,
but
if
new
people
come,
you
know
it's
cool
to
yeah,
get
them
paid
when
they
do
the
work
actually
so
yeah
we
were
thinking
monthly
it.
You
know,
and
we
were
thinking
on.
Oh
yeah,
we're
just
thinking
of
doing
a
template
and
you
know
and
ivy
was
offering
to
just
monthly.
I
I
would
strongly
recommend
at
least
starting
out
with
like
three
to
five
months
of
funding
and
then
being
able
to
propose
later
that
you
do
it
monthly,
but
on
the
outset,
getting
some
funds
that
you
have
for
working
capital
so
that
you
don't
ever
run
out.
You
know
you
always
have
some
in
the
bank.
A
I'd
also
like
to
add,
if
you're
asking
people
to
vote
every
month,
it
might
be
fatiguing
for
the
people
you're
asking
to
vote
so
perhaps
for
the
sake
of
the
community,
the
fewer
votes
we
have
to
do
might
might
have
increased
the
chances
of
actually
these
votes.
Getting
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
how
that'll
work
with
the
correlation
between
the
amount
being
voted
and
the
required
support,
but
yeah.
That
was
the
other
thing
I
don't
know
yeah.
I
guess
another
consideration
is
how
many
votes
we
actually
are
expecting
to
have.
G
I
actually
agree
with
what
you
were
saying
like
you
know,
but
at
the
same
time
you
know
doing
it
more
frequently.
It
adds
mutual
accountability.
You
know
if
you
are
asking
oh
10
years,
so
you
know
and
of
course
I'm
exaggerating,
but
the
thing
is
like
you
know
the
the
faster
and
recording
it
is.
It's
more
accountable.
G
Oh
yeah
I'll
pass
it
to
an
nate.
J
Hey
yeah,
so
I
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
on
this,
but
you
know,
I
think,
just
kind
of
my
observations
is
something
I
want
to
go
with
right
now.
You
know
that
a
lot
of
working
groups
are
going
to
be.
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
that
we
do.
Each
working
group
has
their
own
system
for
managing
this
the
rewards.
J
However,
I
do
think
that
there
are
a
lot
of
different
things
like
stratification
of
pay
and
things
like
that,
where
people
get
different
pay
based
off
different
roles
is
problematic,
where
we're
gonna
end
up
managing
conflict
more
than
we
need
to.
I
think
a
ubi
model
is
my
long-term
view
of
things
is
the
route
to
go,
but
I
also
don't
think
we
have
the
infrastructure
for
that.
At
the
moment,
each
working
group
is
different.
Most
of
the
you
know,
development,
whether
it
be
params,
common,
swarm
or
tec.
J
Labs
are
gonna
mostly
be
proposal.
Based
from
what
I
can
tell
you
know
big
projects,
they
fund
it
and
you
move
on,
and
then
you
have
things
like
soft
gov,
which
will
be.
You
know.
J
You
know
relying
on
the
reward
system,
which
is
great
because
there's
not
a
lot
of
you
know
big
projects
that
come
up,
but
you
want
to
reward
the
people
that
participate,
and
then
you
have
your
service
type
dials,
which
is
like
gravity
and
comms
who
are
going
to
actively
be
looking
for
other
sources
of
revenue,
and
so
there
are
a
bunch
of
different
pathways
we
can
take.
J
But
let's
see
I
I
I
just
get
worried
that
if
we
separate
ourselves
from
the
reward
system,
like
a
you,
know
a
holistic,
comprehensive
reward
system
for
all
the
tec,
that
will
kind
of
lose
touch
with.
You
know
the
unity
that
we
have
within
working
groups,
but
yeah.
I
those
are
just
some
of
my
thoughts
on
it
and
I
would
really
like
to
see
the
upi
model,
but
I
yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
pass
it
to
mitch.
K
Nice
timing:
I
definitely
have
to
echo
a
lot
of
nate's
thoughts
of
just
like
this
separation
and
like
kind
of
like
building
these
like
closed
substructures.
K
I
think,
and
a
lot
of
it
comes
from
working
groups
wanting
to
become
separate
entities
and
wondering
how
does
that
you
know
come
back
together
into
like
the
greater
community
that
we're
trying
to
build.
You
know,
even
before
we've
launched
our
full
comments.
So
it's
like
one
thing
that
kind
of
concerns
me
about
how
that
might
feel
like
there's
walls
being
built
like
you
know,
imaginary
walls,
and
the
other
thing
is:
how
do
we
want
to
build
collaborating
between
working
groups?
K
You
know
I
can
see
a
lot
of
different
projects
and
working
groups
doing
stuff
that
requires
work
from
other
people.
You
know
so
I
mean
comms
is
doing
a
twitter
campaign,
that's
about
stuff,
that's
in
parameters,
and
so
you
need
parameter
guys
to
like
go
through
it,
and
so
how
are
you
going
to
be
building
that
collaborative
work
and
the
same
stuff
here
with
the
soft
gov?
You
know
we're
building
these
reward
systems.
K
I
think
that's
part
of
soft
gov,
but
really
you're
going
to
need
the
developers
that
are
working
in
parameters
or
commons
form
to
do
this
kind
of
stuff.
So
how
are
we
going
to
be
more
collaborative
and
how
are
we
going
to
to
build
that
basically
or
incorporate
it
into
our
budgets,
and
I
will
pass
it
to
eduardo?
Have
you
gone
yet.
D
Thank
you
mitch.
I
shared
the
sentiment
of
mitch
and
nate.
I
am
having
this
conversation
that
saturday
on
paris
and
I
feel
that
this
sub
dao
kind
of
concept
it's
a
little
bit
tricky
like
I.
I
just
had
this
image
of
dismantling
something,
not
necessarily
dismantling
but
the
feeling
of
dismantling
before
finishing
the
the
the
process
of
building
something
it's
weird
for
me
to
like
see
it.
D
In
that
perspective,
I
do
understand
the
need
of
letting
certain
working
groups
or
spaces
grow
up
a
little
bit
more
like
gravity
and
this
kind
of
stuff
they
because
of
what
they
tackle.
They
need
to
have
a
now
kind
of
approach
in
order
to
grow
and
evolved,
and
then
there
is
this
crossover
well,
as
mitch
explained
about
having
this
people
working
in
many
working
groups,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
previous
store
meeting
the
other
day,
and
I
feel
that
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
solution.
D
We
don't
have
a
solution
for
this.
I
think
we
just
have
to
try
it
out
and
see
how
it
works,
but
I
will
like
would
like
to
see
a
high
level
of
sense
making
in
the
sense
that
making
sure
that
the
people
who
are
being
part
of
these
working
groups
are
sort
of
satisfied
with
this
process
and
and
having
a
nurturing
process
with
the
community
and
having
people
so
subject
matter.
Experts
from
other
communities,
like
one
hive,
just
do
a
small
check-in
and
feedback
on
this
process.
D
Once
it's
clear
just
to
see
having
an
external
perspective
over
this,
maybe
we'll
be
clear
for
everyone,
but
yeah
over
that.
I
don't.
I
think
orientation
is
getting
handled
by
suga.
So
I
don't
have
much
to
say
regarding
the
budget
proposal
in
that
sense
and
then
I
will
pass
it
on
to
leave
me.
Have
you
gone?
I
think.
A
I
Yay,
because
I
just
completely
disagree
with
nate
mitch
and
dora
on
this
one,
which
is,
which
is
great,
I
mean
it's
good
to
have
different
opinions.
I
I
do
like
the
fact
that
we
will
have
one
reward
system
for
everyone
in
the
tc
and
that's
the
reward
system,
but
conviction
voting
is
very
suited
for
the
use
case
of
dividing
and
scaling
horizontally
and
pursuing
parallel
paths,
and
I
think
it's
a
lot
easier
to
have
and
a
lot
more
dowey
in
a
way
to
have.
I
You
know:
10
small
groups
that
are
coordinating
to
pro
to
advance
token
engineering
and
manage
the
community
and
manage
different
systems
than
it
is
to
scale
vertically
and
have
one
big
organization
that
standardized
pay
and
standardizes.
All
these
things
and
you
know,
manages,
tries
to
coordinate
a
group
of
you
know
what
will
be
50
to
100
people
with
with
one
standard
that
doesn't
quite
fit
the
needs
of
every
project
and
process
versus
conviction.
I
Voting
where
it's
very
well
set
for
making
lots
of
small
funding
proposals-
or
you
know
a
varying
size
and
then
continuing
to
top
up
and
and
even
being
able
to
pursue
parallel
paths
which
in
some
ways
is
difficult
right,
but
for
my
working
groups,
it's
perfect
because
for
my
working
groups
I
don't
expect
to
make
a
standard
proposal.
I
will
do
very
for
both
the
parameters
working
group
and
the
common
swarm.
I
I
Maybe
that
team
is
giveth
devs,
who
knows,
and
maybe
some
of
these
projects
will
be
cross-pollinated
by
multiple
conviction,
voting
nows,
and
that
way
we
can
actually
have
competing
dev
teams
trying
to
provide
value
to
to
this
economy-
and
this
is
this
is
my
main
thing-
is
that
this
is
an
economy
not
and
and
trying
to
structure
it
as
an
organization.
I
Is,
I
think,
in
my
opinion,
it's
a
it's
a
mistake
and
it's
a
it's
a.
We
will
end
up
being
less
dowy
than
we
than
we
would
prefer
because
we'll
just
scale
vertically
and
end
up
with
a
bunch
of
management
I'll
pass
it
to.
I
H
H
H
So
that's
and-
and
I
think
that
can
be
easily
done
through
an
initial
funding
through
conviction.
Voting
and
keep
you
know,
keep
keep
the
funds
on
on
saddam
or
on
a
nazi,
safe
or
whatever.
We
decide.
As
a.
H
And
just
have
it
ready
in
the
event,
we
need
to
run
fast.
That's,
but
that's
that's
my
personal
sense.
I
don't
think
we
need
any
ongoing
mechanism
for,
for
you
know
compensation,
because
I
really
don't
think
there's
gonna
be
work
on
an
ongoing
basis
on
legal
and
that
that
that
those
are
my
thoughts
and
there's
another
thing
I
wanted
to
share.
I
couldn't
meet
yesterday.
I
couldn't
join
yesterday
meeting,
but
I
personally
I'm
thinking
on
stepping
back
once
we
we're
going
to
the
into
the
commons
upgrade.
H
I
think
my
work
on
legal
is
is
gonna,
be
ending,
I'm
not
an
expert,
so
I
cannot.
There
is
not
too
much
I
can
do
in
the
event
we
can.
We
run
into
a
legal
issue
because
I'm
not
a
legal
guy
and-
and
I
don't
think
it
has
too
much
sense
to
keep
to
keep
leading
the
group.
So
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
with
you
guys.
H
I
don't
know
if
there
is
anyone
else
missing
from
the
stewards.
Oh
yeah
them.
Sorry
about
that.
I
see
you.
A
That's
okay!
So
that's
my
time
or
two.
I
really
appreciated
everything
everyone
has
said
so
far
and
I
think
when
I
was
doing
the
proposal
for
the
stewards,
there
is
a
natural
tension
between
attracting
the
talent
like
attracting
people
that
you
know
that
can
stay
and
continue
to
work
in
the
tec,
but
also
making
sure
that
the
stewards
and
other
not
other
working
groups,
but
like
that,
what
the
the
operations
of
the
dow
is
like.
A
So
it's
kind
of
what
what
chewie
was
referring
to
either
is
like
making
sure
that
we
care
for
the
contributors,
and
that
means
to
be
able
to
reward
them
in
ways
that
they
can
continue
to
expand
their
efforts
in
the
tdc
and
there's
a
tension
with
that
and
like
we
want
to
support
like
if
we
end
up
burning
a
hundred
thousand
k
a
month
in
just
our
operations.
How
many
te
projects
are
we
going
to
be
able
to
really
support?
A
So
it's
finding
that
balance
between
making
sure
that
when
we
look
at
all
of
the
dow
operations
like
all
of
the
working
groups
and
what
the
burn
rate
is
for
all
of
the
working
groups,
it
doesn't
end
up,
meaning
that
we
will
probably
not
be
able
to
support
very
many
token
engineering
projects,
because
we've
actually
spent
all
of
what
we've
raised
on
dow
operations.
So
I
just
feel
like
that's
the
big
you
know,
that's
the
elephant
in
the
room,
that's
the
like!
How
do
we?
A
Versus
making
sure
that
we
are
taking
care
of
our
contributors
and
ourselves
and
that
we
do,
we
do
want
to
attract
people
who
can
come
and
enjoy
working
here,
but
also
are
able
to
to
make
ends
meet.
You
know
it's
not
a
mission
of
altruism
to
participate
in
the
tec,
so
that
was
the
biggest
pension
I
have,
and
I
don't.
A
So
I
just
I'm
going
to
drop
that
for
everyone
to
share
in
my
yeah
feel
it
feeling
like
bad
fit
like
I'm
like.
I
don't
know
how
that
fits.
That's
how
it
feels
for.
B
A
Okay,
so
thanks
for
allowing
me
to
go,
I'm
gonna
keep
passing
it
around
because
there's
a
lot
of
people
here
with
really
great
perspectives
and
I'd
love
durgados.
If
you
can
share
your
thoughts,
you've
been
in
our
community
for
ever
right,
so
I
think
you
might
have
some.
L
L
Yeah,
I
so
we're
we're
talking
yesterday
about
what
we
could
do
to
sort
of
make
some
of
these
things.
So
we
could
see
the
shadow
of
things
and
also
just
to
take
good
decisions.
It
seems.
L
That
the
people
who
are
running
the
individual
worker
groups
probably
have
the
best
idea
about
how
you
know
which
which
side
of
the
canefen
picture
are.
Are
they
dealing
with
right
now
so,
for
example,
with
santi's
transition
into
the
you
know
from
the
legal
what
he
did
was
sort
of
very
complex
and
then
it
became
complicated
and
then
now
it's
going
to
be
clear,
so
he's
going
to
have
less
to
do
because
everything's
already
stood
up
right.
L
L
You
know
what
I'm
saying
so,
whereas
the
legal
thing
is
headed,
you
know,
clockwise,
the
the
gravity
thing
is
is
actually
headed
anti-clockwise
in
terms
of
that,
and
I
think
it
might
actually
when,
when
someone
someone
mentioned,
you
know
sense
making.
I
think
it
would
help
people
a
lot
to
contextualize
and
make
sense
around
where
different
working
groups
are
and
where
they
are
in
their
evolution,
what
their
needs
are
and
so
on.
L
If,
if
we
had
a
clear
sense
of
the
kind
of
action
mode,
that's
appropriate
for
that
particular
working
group
at
that
particular
time,
and
if
we're
constantly
checking
in
with
each
other
around
that,
then
we
have
a
shared
framework
in
which
to
contextualize
some
of
those
understandings.
So
that's
and
and
then
see
what
what.
L
Of
what
what
a
lot
of
benefit
that
livy
and
griff
in
particular
have?
Is
they
had
they?
L
They
do
have
a
sense
of
these
kinds
of
things,
but
not
everybody
has
participated
in
the
dallas
space
since
it
was
created,
see
what
I'm
saying
like
so
so
in
order
to
be
able
to
help
with
onboarding
and
and
and
that
sort
of
thing
having
a
shared
sense,
making
a
framework
in
which
we
understand
what
the
decision
spaces
of
each
of
those
four
things
are,
might
go
a
long
way
toward
trying
to
make
it
so
that
we
all
see
we
all
feel
like
griff,
instead
of
we're
all
just
trying
to
figure
out.
L
That's
great,
oh
yeah,
I'm
super
distracted
and
only
slightly
following.
So
I
I
I'm
just
gonna
pass
thanks
tim.
A
Cool
no
problem
I
saw
manu
here,
but
I
think
he's
gone
now.
What
about
writer.
A
Oh
hi,
sorry,
if
you
just
to
say
I'm
gonna
ask
everyone
if
they
want
to
speak
about
the
subject,
considerations
for
working
group
funding
and
if
you
don't
feel
free
just
to
pass
so
we
can
keep
going.
Would
you
like
to
say
anything
about
it?
Writer.
F
I
still
remember
harking
back
to
what
olivia
said
about
using
like
kind
of
all
the
reward
systems
together,
and
I
still
think
that
that's
an
awesome
idea
and
I
still
think
that
that
is
taking
on
so
much
and
I
haven't
seen
tec
use,
source
cred,
but
I've
heard
it's
been
tested
and
I'm
kind
of
curious
if
there
would
end
up
being
a
working
group
that
just
wants
to
be
beta
testing
for
source
cred
and
to
see
how
that
distributes
funding
throughout
their
working
group.
F
F
E
G
I'd
like
to
add
one
thing,
and
please
I'm
just
thinking
like
if
we
you
know,
for
example,
softcup
wants
to
just
rely
on
the
reward
system,
but
then
other
groups
might
be
asking
for
funds,
and
I
think
that
could
create
this
balance.
You
know
where
people
from
soft
golf
would
be
less
rewarded
than
other
working
groups,
because
the
other
working
groups
are
being
rewarded
by
praise
and
shortcut,
but
at
the
same
time,
for
their
funding
so
yeah.
G
J
Can
I
ask
you
a
question
tam
how
how
like
are
we
incorporating
operational
costs
like
things
like
services
that
we're
using?
Maybe
it's
dashlane?
Maybe
it's
hubspot
things
like
that
within
these
funding
proposals.
Should
those
things
be
included.
A
I
would
imagine
it
might
be
its
own
separate
proposal,
but
maybe
griff
has
some
perspective
on
this
and
then
I
would
love
to
go
back
to
what
zfd
misjust
said,
but
maybe
I'll
pass
that
to
grip.
I
think
that's,
maybe
how
mother
daughter.
A
Yeah,
that
sounds
logical,
what's
up
jimmy
said,
really
also
struck
for
me.
It's
it's
something
that
I
think
maybe
olivia
and
I
had
a
conversation
about
just
sort
of
like
how
how
do
there
would
be
some
working
groups
whose
contributors
are
receiving
some
sort
of
base
and
then
rewards
on
top,
and
then
it
seems
like
the
contributors
at
working
group
of
the
of
working
groups
that
are
just
reward
based
would
sort
of
start
out
like
they.
A
You
know
they
might
get
the
same
amount
of
rewards,
but
they
wouldn't
have
some
sort
of
base,
and
it
is
a
big
question
mark
in
in
my
mind
as
well,
and
I
it's
shaped
my
thinking
a
little
bit
and
in
in
in
my
thinking
through
the
stewards
I
tried
to
imagine,
based
on
what
we
have
now.
A
If
I
went
through,
you
know
this
is
sort
of
like
very
low
base.
You
know,
there's
just
a
base
salary
and
the
idea
would
be.
This
is
very
not
selling.
This
is
base
reward
based
compensation
base.
Stipend,
that's
the
word,
I'm
looking
for
like
a
base,
stipend
just
for
accepting
to
be
a
steward
and
the
responsibilities
that
come
with
it.
It's
actually
there's
a
lot
of
that's
expected
of
a
steward
and
then
would
get
rewards
on
top
of
that
would
be
this
sort
of
low.
E
G
A
A
To
20
a
week,
so
it's
you
know
when
you
put
that
in
perspective
of
like
how
do
we
make
sure
that
we're
there
our
stewards
are
feeling
valued
enough?
You
know,
and
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
there'll
be
a
lot
of
hope
that
the
reward
system
does
this,
this
balancing
to
to
make
sure
that
rewards
are
distributed
to
people
who
are
have
no
or
a
very
low
base
stipend
and
then
on
the
higher
end.
You
know
eleven
thousand
a
month.
A
It
does
also
feel
like
how
are
we
going
to
support
any
projects
if
we're
burning
120k
a
month
just
for
stewards
and
then
each
working
group
you
know
so
there.
I
really
struggle
to
find
some
sort
of
way
to
take
into
account
the
factors
of
there's
a
reward
system.
There's
this
working
group
and
all
working
groups
are
also
doing
work
for
other
working
groups,
so
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
table
and
I
have
no
great.
E
I
I
have
some
thoughts
on
that.
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
what
we're
doing
now
is
somehow
speculative,
because
we
don't
know
how
our
economy
is
gonna
behave
yet
so
we
don't
know
the
value
of
the
token
how
the
the
bonding
curve
is
going
to
work,
how
people
are
going
to
come
in
what
types
of
projects
we're
going
to
support
how
the
value
is
going
to
be
created.
E
So
I
think
those
proposals
are
are
very
valuable
for
creating
the
sense
of
security
for
everyone
that
is
involved
in
the
tc
now,
and
it's
good
to
hear
different
thoughts
from
different
people,
because
this
reflects
a
little
bit
like
the
needs
that
every
person
has.
But
this
will
probably
change
a
lot
once
we
see
how
the
economy
is
behaving
and
how
we
behave
with
that.
E
So
I
like
what
griff
said
once
that
it's
great
to
have
all
of
all
of
these
different
types
of
proposals,
because
we'll
have
multiple
experiments
running
at
the
same
time
and
we'll
see
which
one
is
working
best
and
I
think
we'll
be
able
to
have
somehow
like
a
feedback
loop
within
this
process.
And
and
this
will
help
us
adjust
with
time
and
see
what
works
better.
J
I'm
just
going
to
say
that
one
thing
that
does
concern
me
is
the:
by
having
this
that
type
of
system
we
kind
of
put
a,
I
don't
know
an
obstacle
to
having
organizational
flexibility
in
terms
of
creating
new
working
groups,
incorporating
new
stewards,
new
organizational
temporary
structures
like
committees
or
task
forces,
or
anything
like
that
that
we
may
need
it's
very
difficult
to
think
about
a
kind
of
a
static
reward
system
that
doesn't
account
for
organizational
flexibility.
J
I
Okay:
okay,
I
just
want
to
say
that,
like
I
think,
what's
interesting
is
that
a
lot
of
these
working
groups
now
are
becoming
public
goods.
For
the
token
engineering
space
specifically
comms
and
gravity
are
not
they're,
not
just
tec
operations,
it
is,
they
are
providing
token
engineering
value,
and
so
I
I
wouldn't
consider
those
part
of
the
dow
operations
honestly
I'd.
Consider
those
projects
that
we're
lucky
to
have
in
our
community
and
and
then
with
soft
gov
transparency,
legal
and
communitas.
I
Those
are
operations,
and
I
don't
think
and
stewards
and
I,
but
I
don't
think
that
they
should
need
to
be
so
expensive
and
then
they
also
get
some
support
from
from
other
from
other
rewards,
and
we
will
see,
as
olivia
said,
about
how
much
money
we
actually
end
up
with,
and
we
don't
know
the
structure
of
the
of
the
economy
yet
like
if
we
have
like
what
the
exit
tributes
will
be
and
how
how
much
continuous
flow
that
we
have
and
it'll
be
very
interesting
to
see
the
how
the
volatility
feeds
a
revenue
stream
into
the
common
pool,
because
it's
not
like
we
just
have
this.
I
Whatever
we
put
into
the
common
pool
at
the
beginning,
we
will
have
a
monthly
revenue
and
so
it'll
be
very
interesting
to
to
just
have
some
experience
on
that
and
and
then
be
able
to
decide
on
flows
and
such
and
after
after
that,
we'll
also
be
able
to
take
on
other
income
generating
streams,
and
I
think
that
the
the
operational
structure
will
ins
will
support
creating
more
income
generation.
I
So,
like
I
don't
know
like
I
was
talking,
we
have
could
have
sell
te
scouts,
cookies
right,
that'd
be
really
fun
and
it
could
just
the
money
that
we
make
above
the
cost
goes
to
the
community
pool
right
and
maybe
those
cookies
are
nfts
or
maybe
they're
actually
delicious
cookies.
That
would
be
great,
you
know,
so
it's
not
like
we
launch,
and
then
we
just
have
this
much
money
we
launch,
and
then
we
try
to
coordinate
value
creation
that
further
generates
funding
into
the
commonwealth,
I'll
pass
it
to
you.
I
do.
D
Yeah
we
had
this
conversation
with
septi
and
ivy
regarding,
where
is
the
boundary
in
between
having
a
cause
of
living
and
what
is
the
perspective
of
working
in
a
space
or
contributing
to
a
community
like
this,
where
there
is
a
value
aligned
and
there
is
a
common
goal,
and
how
do
you
balance
your
sort
of
kind
of
daily
life
with
that
common
goal?
D
And
I
think,
and
then
I
reflect
on
if
there
is
someone
who
contribute
to
five
working
groups
and
that
person
receive
an
income
from
all
of
these
working
groups,
how
much
that
will
represent
the
dow
as
an
expense.
So
I
feel
there
could
be
a
very
interesting
analysis
and
more
of
a
data
analysis.
D
Once
we
have
more
draft
to
put
that
into
a
graphic
that
we
can
see
how
long
that
is
sustainable
and
we
can
sort
of
see
what
will
be
as
an
estimated
amount
of
costs
for
operational
or
dow
wise
and
to
project
just
based
on
draft
just
to
project
how
far
we
are
getting
from
reality.
Or
how
close
are
we
from
actually
opera
be
operational
and
rational
with
this
expenses?
D
I
think
that
could
be
interesting
to
run
a
data
analysis
of
that
of
this
budget
that
we
are
proposing
before
even
sending
the
proposals,
and
then
it
could
be
also
interesting
to
set
up
set
a
gap
and
say
no
one
can
earn
more
than
let's
say
5k
from
working
groups,
because
sender
is
so
we
I
feel
we
need
to
set
some
boundaries,
as
ostrom
basically
also
says.
We
need
to
set
some
boundaries
to
also
understand
that.
D
C
I
want
to
say
that
I
agree
with
elu,
and
I
think
that,
like
someone
who
wants
to
contribute
in
all
working
groups
is
just
like
trying
to
gain
the
system,
because
if
you
really
want
to
contribute
you
you,
you
also
need
to
focus
and
and
spend
some
time
in
in
the
working
group
and
like
I
feel
like
if,
when
someone
collaborates
in
a
working
group
like
they
also
spend
and
commit
to
certain
responsibilities
that
maybe,
if
you
are
like
contributing
to
all
working
groups,
you
are
not
going
to
have
the
same
impact
as
if
you
like,
deliver
and
focus
on
on
one
or
two
working
groups
like
I.
C
I
I
think
that
the
reward
system
could
probably
maybe
try
to
keep
that
into
account,
and
also
there
is
like
there
was
an
example
of
a
contributor
in
the
space
that
was
double
charging
for
work
and
ended
up
getting
kind
of
caught
for
that
they
were
double
charging
from
different
orgs
for
doing
the
same
work
and
and
the
orgs
didn't
know
it
was
happening
and
that
actually,
because
of
a
lack
of
conflict,
it's
actually
one
of
my
favorite
examples
of
why
we
need
gravity,
because
then
that
person
got
ostracized
from
all
the
communities
that
they
were
working
with
and
yeah.
I
And
so
I
think
we
just
also
yeah
we're
going.
The
coordination
around
payments
will
be
difficult
and
it
will
be
sensitive
and
we'll
just
have
to
take
it
pretty
seriously.
F
I
I
think
the
thing
that
was
wrong
is
that
the
other
orgs
were
not
aware
that
there
wasn't
clear
communication
that
was
happening
and
then
they
felt
like
and
and
it
was
there.
I
don't
think
that
there's
anything
wrong
with
it
if
it's
transparent
and
then
the,
but
there
were
other,
also
microaggressions
or
micro
issues
that
where
people
felt
like
a
person
was
also
claiming
some
work
that
they
didn't
do
and
these
sorts
of
things
you
know,
and
so
it
was
like
a
lot
of
small
things
that
added
up
to
no
conflict
resolution
and
ostracism.
F
A
I
want
to
jump
in
if
I
can,
and
I
I
would
say
that
I
think
that
this
is
something
that
is
solved
on
the
social
layer
and
maybe
doesn't
I
like
the
idea
of
a
contributor
participating
in
more
than
one
working
group.
I
think
that
we
know
if
a
person
that
we
should
trust,
that
everyone
has
agency
to
participate
where
and
how
they
want
and
if
they
have
the
capacity
to
participate
in
a
meaningful
way.
In
two
three
five,
six
working
groups
I
mean
kudos.
We
want
that
person
to
be.
A
We
wouldn't
want
to
block
that
person
or
limit
the
person
you
know
doing
what
it
is
that
they,
the
skill,
bringing
the
skill
that
they
have
to
more
than
one
working
group.
But
I
think
the
case
that
griff
was
highlighting
was
more
along
the
lines
of
trying
to
pass
off
the
same
piece
of
work
to
multiple,
different
and
groups
as
if
it
was
unique
for
that
group,
so
sort
of
like.
Oh,
it
took
me
10
hours
to
do
this.
A
But
I
would
imagine
if
a
person's
working
for
or
contributing
to
four
different
working
groups,
there
are
probably
different
levels
in
which
they're
contributing
some
may
be
redeemed,
deemed
you
know,
compensatable
by
the
working
group
and
some
may
not.
F
I
Absolutely
hey:
remember
all
the
stewards
remember
to
update
your
slides
and
after
them,
bye.