First thing is should we record or not? And the second one is maybe it's nice to have a very short introduction of people who haven't been here before. And I see three of you so that's really good and cool. Does anybody have anything against recording the call?
thing but I will go off camera for five minutes to finish my dinner. Apologies.
All right, you're excused. If you are introducing yourself, would you prefer to do that? Before I start recording or after? Let's let me put it differently. Does anybody have an objection if I start recording now, and it's perfectly fine? No All right, then I'll just start recording and wait a minute. Wait a minute. I have to get some instructions on how to do this properly. Yeah.
I'll record it. From my recording in progress. All right.
Hello, everybody. Good to see you here. And we have some new faces. And I don't want to spend half the meeting on introductions but I think it would be very nice if you can just in one minute max. Tell a few things about yourself if you would like to. Should I call out people or will they take the initiative? It's always a question. I'll call out people I see me thrown. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing it correctly, but you can hit me for that.
Yes, thank you. And yes, you can call me me and it's meter. Okay. So you can call me me? I'm from Vietnam. And I'm friends. With Philips. And I'm also friends with TiVo here. And I'm from the eastern townhome from the Corrado ecosystem. And I'm having with the community managers with boosting the community in Vietnam. And so that's something about me. Okay, so it's very nice to see everybody here. Thank you.
Cool. Great to have somebody from Vietnam here. Wonderful. Thank you for joining me. Then let's continue with Daniel. Hi.
My name is Danielle and from West Africa, Ghana. Part of the community managers for the African townhall catalysts are from Tahoe and one of the facilitators for the African catalyst school and it is just about blockchain and blockchain education advocacy. And I'm happy to be thought and to join this meeting today. If there's anything more you can ask. Okay.
Welcome Daniel. Glad to have you here and catalyst caderno catalyst is very good supplier of community members to us and we are very grateful for that because obviously you also bring a lot of experience and yeah, we can only benefit from that. So welcome. Then I saw one more new face, Victor, I think you
so I'm Victor. I'm also from the catalyst community. I've created a few projects. They're co founder of catalyst school Catholics form Castle catalyst aim and I've been also proposed assessor proposal proposal mentor in some other roles in the community for since beginning in 2021.
That is
cool. And actually this is also a perfect meeting for you to join perfect moments. What is on the agenda for today is our community Governance Program. And very specifically, we we ran that program over the last four weeks, there were two weeks in where we asked our community members to come up with any proposals on how we can improve round one and create a proposal for round two. It's also restricted to round two we don't want to to start discussing now things for infinity. So this is just for round two. It's an experiment. And then we had two weeks more on further discussing these things. And right now the question would be which of these topics would be appropriate for asking our wider community for a vote? So what we did we did. We had a very open discussion on anybody who would like to submit a proposal beforehand. We mentioned that we would filter down the proposals, all the proposals to two or three that we would actually propose to the community. We don't want to overwhelm the community with 15 proposals. Also, some are connected or somewhat overlapping, some are more suitable, some are more popular than others. And yeah, I think it will be very interesting experiment to see what the community thinks of that. And to give you a little bit more context on this for those here in the group or those who are watching this if you're not, didn't follow this experiment. What we're aiming to do it's an experiment it's an experiment in governance. So one aspect of it is that we really would like to learn what the community is thinking of the current rules, sets and conditions of deep funding and where you think we can improve. But we also see this as an experiment in reputation management and our n n n experiments in incentivization. So what we did over the last four weeks is all the interactions on our defending portal powered by by our friends from Sway is recorded has been recorded, we will get an export from that we didn't receive that yet. And there's also the new feature in in the portal to have a web three login now this means two things. One thing is that we can understand somehow, which of the contributors were most constructive and had the most frequent things and were most liked perhaps on the portal. So which were the most helpful? Discussions or the helpful contributors, which I should say? And the other thing is that we can connect that behavior with voting behavior. On our voting portal, which is at this moment, separate environments. And then we can maybe use that reputation that you will get as a contributor on our portal and have that influence the folding weight on our voting portal. So people who are most helpful could get a higher voting weight than people who are not actively actively participating in these discussions. And another thing we can do based on this is that we can give some rewards to people for contributing because we value these contributions and we think it's important, not yesterday's governments, this government called proposals, but also for the actual the funding rounds. We want people to be engaged and we want all of you to help us from the funding to find the best way to organize this also in the future. We would like you to help all the teams that will put forward a proposal and help them think on how they can improve them with some critical thinking.
So we will calculate which wallets are which people were most helpful in their contributions. We will check which of these wallets were which of these these contributors were connected to a vote on our portal. And based on that, we will distribute 100,000 agi x in rewards over the most helpful contributor. So you don't have to vote to be rewarded. Just contributing is enough. But just voting is not enough. Voting and contributing would give you the highest score basically. And the details of that and we also clarified at the beginning of the process. This is an experiment. So we will have a look at all the data gathered and based on that we have some ideas how we want to do it but it's not all set in stone. So we will come up with a calculation on and we will be very transparent in who will have the highest rating and therefore also the highest rewards and based on what criteria and then this is starting points, perhaps if it's successful, to do that. And continue to do that going forward. Any questions? So I'm a little bit distracted in the meantime, but all kinds of chats are going on. So I have a look at that in the meantime, while maybe you have some some questions on this.
Well, I think one of the questions in chat actually was whether you would need to log in with your wallet under 14 points. And that's what happens in chat there and try to explain that for the actual vote. You will need A wallet on Aetherium. That's right now not implemented yet on Cardano. Unfortunately, we should does another way but yeah, that's just not finished yet. So that's the current state.
My question is that like how do you map the voter with the person that's contributing on sway? Because what if they logged in with different wallets? Like what's the identifier? If
they're logging in with different wallets, we can't connect them. So that's your prerequisites for if you want us to connect you then you would have to use the same wallet in both areas. And maybe we can we can Well, that depends a little bit on the functionality on sway. I can imagine at some point will there will be an option to have their will into add your Cardano wallets also for for getting the rewards so the rewards will be actually AGI so to make it more complex reward will be AGI X on caderno because otherwise, also the transaction fees on Aetherium etc will be too high. So we'd like to avoid that. And it's also part of the treasury of deep funding, which is also made out of AGI Exxon Cardano. So we're very committed to Cardano and having AGI Exxon Cardano. But we also have pipelines still in development and yeah, this is just one of the features that has not been developed as yet but will be hopefully pretty soon. Yeah, and how we will will exactly do the things like so if you have if yeah if you have a credit yeah I what I expect will happen is that you have a main wallets on sway which you use if you use the same wallet in our voting portal it will be connected. But if that is an Aetherium wallet, you will also there is a text field where you can add your caradonna wallet. So we know to which wallet we can disperse the mouse that does basically it and as mentioned, it's an experiment. Also, some features still may need to be built for that not just on our end, but also on the portal. So it's an ongoing journey. But mainly I wouldn't I wouldn't want to wait for all the functionality to be ready and to be perfect before starting on these kinds of experiments. I think it's important to experiment and to learn. Even if some things we have to do manual that we would rather have automated for instance and even if we have to find out rules as we go along at some space. I think right now most important thing is to learn as fast as we can.
Any other questions on this? Well, just
for clarity on your profile, if you edit the settings to feel to Scott's additional wallet details if you put your receive adverts there that will get you the rewards just for completeness sake.
Yeah, very good points. A little bit more concrete than then I was. I was just saying thanks for that Peter. So that feels is indeed already there. Just the label of the field may not be super clear, but the field is there for everybody I think so it was hard to make a special label for us. Alright, if you Yeah, continue.
I was gonna say I apologize. I came in late, but where's the form that we have to submit?
Well, it's not a show. If you want to be eligible for getting rewarded for participating in the discussions in this experiment, you would have to add your Cardano wallet address in a field on the profile of our portal. So in the field name is other wallets or something I think and how you can just in a text fields and your wallet address. It doesn't make any connection or web three thing or whatever. It's just a text field for us to know where to disburse your your amounts.
Okay, so we put under a profound sway
Yeah, yeah. And if you would like to vote on the proposals that we will be discussing, then you would have to go to the singularity net voting portal which will communicate soon or when it's time yeah, pretty soon actually. But for that, unfortunately, at this stage, you would need an AGI X on Aetherium wallet still.
Okay, perfect. Thank you all right.
I'm just closing some distraction there distracting applications here to get rid of all those strange sounds. Yeah, so let's let's talk about the proposal. So what we did last time, we already outlined a few proposals that we thought would be interesting to to put forward for a community vote I will present them but I did. To focus this meeting a little bit and also to ensure that after this call, we can go forward really quickly to the voting process, because I'd like to have that done fast because then also we can start with round two faster. So I'd rather not waste not waste too much time. Therefore I already wrote an outline of an article that I will probably publish maybe tomorrow or something. But it's a sketch. So I did this to speed up. I also wrote it to give our discussions here a little bit more focus. But you're completely free to make any comments you want and we're completely open to make any changes of guaranteeing it but yeah, based on argumentation and if a lot of you think that we should have other questions that were put forward or if we should format the answers differently, have different answers, or if the texts should be different because in these kinds of votes, actually, the texts are very important. Because they can already consciously or subconsciously guide people in a certain direction and we want everything to be as open honest and as neutral as possible because we want to have genuine answers. Yeah, so it's that clear then I will I will share my screen and just go through the parts where I already took liberty to describe what I think based on the inputs over the past weeks are appropriate. Proposals to ask the community
we see
if you have any comments or things just shout and just make yourself heard. So we don't need to go over the whole document. Actually, I shared this document in our Discord space. I didn't do it on telegram but I thought discord would be a good channel for this. So anybody have you could already have read it. I'm not sure if you did. So what I'm doing in the document is let me first go here. These are the proposals for voting and I will come back to that later. But it also outlines some other things that I think we will be changing in the next rounds if you want. We can also shortly focus on that. But yeah, due to time, maybe it's best to first focus on the on the maximum three questions we should put out for voting.
So let's start with the first one.
And the first question that I'm very enthusiastic about. It was submitted by Peter I always say when I'm talking about it, is should we have Should we do something with existing for for existing services? So what happens today is that we ask projects to come up with a proposal and it has sometimes a front end, back end whatever and a part of that is a surface but all of that still needs to be developed. Of course there are also a lot of AI services out there already. And a shorter route to have the platform filled with interesting services might be to search their services out and see if we can have them on boarded on the platform shall be totally new services will be existing services in the market, but ones that we think will add value to our platform and invite users to come to our to our platform and to onboard now all of that is of course possible without the funding, anybody can come to our platform and publish their services and if needed, we will give them all the help that we needed. But what this pool could do here is they could give a little bit of off motivation of extra motivation, so it could reward the publisher for the developer for the extra effort. But we could also turn it into a community event by splitting up the reward So suppose that we have a for K of reward, then we could give 2k for an m talking about USD then USD value of AGI x, we could give 2k to the developer to do some efforts. We could give 1k for the community member that actually sought out the developers found a developer contacted him and motivated him to come to us on our platform, and we could reserve another 1k for instance, for a community member it could be the same one or a different one that is actively helping this publisher to onboard the surfers on the platform. We had some technical things that that that needs to be done. And then there's another aspect here. There are a lot of surfers out there that are not quite API ready. So maybe there's also there needs to be done some development work still to make an existing surfaces ready for the platform. And that wouldn't be a prefixed amount that can Yeah, widely vary based on on the surface. So that will depend on whatever the developer says is needed for that. So that's the last minute addition, Peter that I added there. I didn't think about that before. So we take we have a kind of freeform way that we are treating the proposals that are submitted. It's not that we necessarily take proposal one as is and then we'll put that forward to the community. We try to use our collective intelligence to improve whatever proposal or to merge them. So it's for me it's not so much about who made the proposal. It's about which proposal we can think of together that makes most sense for our program.
Talking too much here already.
I'll respond to that the addition of the fourth point because in a way for me that kind of overlaps with point one actually the reward for the developer, and it's not exactly the same, of course. And if there's additional work to be done. I don't mind reserving additional rewards for that. At the same time, yet this work has already been done in different contexts with potential rewards back then. Yeah, so for me I so far didn't really
consider the the API readiness. I guess in the hands of depends on the numbers as well. It's going to be pretty tricky to define like one one a month of rewards for
Yeah, it also overlaps with our regular proofs. shamshir are two questions here. The first question is, should we be rewarding the developer because having the data surface on the platform will be a reward in itself because if it's out there, it can help them start making money. So that's the first question I'm really interested in your answers to. The question related to that, if there is work to be done on the surface, and we pay it for them for that developer, should we pay this person also just for pulling it out? Or should we should it be an end or or kind of thing? So it starts with two with two but four. If you need more work done, then you can add that and we could expand that a little bit. That could be also an option. The third option, which I'm just thinking right now. So this API readiness, as I know, it doesn't have to be trivial. It can be quite substantial. And in some, in some cases, it could be completely refactoring the surface that's already there. And then you could ask yourself, Is this still fitting for the spool? Or should we then say, well, if you need that much, that much effort to still update your service? Better put it in our regular pool? For new proposals, what do you think?
I'm keeping quiet here was trying to do the same.
Anybody has some some ideas about this? Maybe the people coming from catalysts are not that involved in our platform and AI services on our platform, etc. So that's that's a clear difference in cattle with catalyst that we always have to condition for any progress always. We just have one round, but we always have the condition that whatever proposal you're putting forward, it should help support our platform or help grow our platform and the two most obvious ways of doing that would be developing eye surface for our platform yourself, or utilize an existing service that is out there on a front end proposal, for instance.
So that's the backdrop of this.
So just like to make sure we're getting the question clearly you're asking if those people that are developing the AI services should have a separate pool in which they get like rewards.
We show what we do we have proofs for anybody with with any proposal that involves such a surface. But what we see in the past round is what we get are mostly in ended was also intended is that we get mostly proposals for surfaces that still need to be created. And maybe solutions around it so much. But another way of helping grow our platform is for people to go out in the world and search developers or students or whatever, that already have a surface that could be ported. On our platform with limited effort. And that's quite a kind of a different use case. And we also expect that that would, would require much less effort than creating a whole new solution from scratch. And that is what this pool is targeted that.
My opinion, I think, Zoom say one thing real quick, in my opinion for this stick around. I definitely think there should be an amount allocated to that. And then we can just see how many people actually take advantage of that opportunity. And maybe we can expand that pool for the third round or just get rid of them completely, just depending on the community and if they actually use it.
Yeah, basically, that's the case for every proposal. Right now every governance proposal is, in principle limited to round two. But of course, if we think it's great nothing stops us from continuing it but after round two, we will evaluate and see whether it did make sense or not or if it should be continued or not. Joanna
Yeah, I had a question. So how would the different proposals so let's say people want to onboard the existing services on to singularity how would the expenses differ from one project to the next?
Is it like they have to ask for
an amount right. So would it be that like how large the project is or because then that would probably tie into number four on like the expenses, they could probably like us break down the amount based on what it would take
for them.
So are you asking how this particular kind of surface would differ from regular proposals? On our deep funding or generic question on the funding itself?
No, sorry for this specific pool. So let's say like there's services that want to integrate into existing services that want to just integrate into singularity. How would their amounts differ? Like what would be the How would one project need more funding than the other depending on like the service like, do you kind of understand I'm saying, yeah, so
yeah, I think I understand that correct me if I'm wrong. The way I started thinking about it, and I think Peter as well is that it could be fixed amount. So for regular projects, every project is different and has different monetary requirements. But in this case, it could just be a fixed amount. That's why I made the example 1k for the community member that searches 1k for the community members helps onboarding and an amount for the original publisher of the developer, the developer of the service to add an extra motivation, so to speak, and because there's always some effort involved, you know, even if it's just communication, but then I thought, Well, wait a minute. A lot of serves as not quite API ready or maybe they need some other tweaks or maybe they need to update it or or be trained again, or whatever. So there might be some work involved. Also some some actual development work involved for onboarding these existing surfaces and an in depth parts. They might differ from each other.
Does that answer your question? Yeah, that
makes sense because I'm thinking like maybe it could be that certain proposals are just dedicated for those people that are doing the outreaching. But then maybe the people that are interested in integrating, they can actually put in a proposal and break down their expenses. So if they're not API ready, they can ask for a higher amount, so that it's not a fixed amount to actually onboard them. You know what I mean?
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. So that that was what I'm what I was trying to add with this with this APR readiness or whatever needs to be done that we could have fixed amount for certain parts, and then a variable amounts based on specific requirements that needs to be developed. Or something. I see two hands up deeper.
And the way I see is that this proposal or this this combining will help people to they make up their price. So maybe one says stable diffusion I can create cool nifty like prompt ends and something which is already an existing program, and says like he only needs $50 And then provide some kind of graphical evidence but he's proposing but then another one is apart, doesn't it kind of create like a competition I feel like because it is somewhat integration is like one part of that will open so it's not that you can compete there compared to just pull the entire new solution out of glue. So and I feel like that's good to have but Just regression right now we are not choosing ourselves what is what the stands were which we are just going over two proposals, which are they're going to vote on using the wallet right
Sure, yeah. I thought I'd stop sharing I think that's a little bit nicer for also for people watching this later than just having the text in view all the time, but we can switch now and then your your question was what we are actually voting for right now what we're what we're discussing right now. Is which questions and answers we will put out for a community vote. So in this case, I would ask the community maybe it's good to also to have a look at the answers right now. So the question would be literally or whatever however, we will change it should we create a pool for searching and onboarding existing AI services? And then the possible answers would be, yes, this makes sense as a specific pool next to other pools that propose complete solutions, or new services that need to be developed first, so that will be the other pools or Yes, yes, but it's such a great idea that let's focus the next round completely on this approach. That could be another answer or the third answer. No. Although onboarding existing surfaces important stimulating there should not be the purpose of deep fundings treasury, which is also a valid choice. So what we are discussing right now is, is this the right question to ask to the community is this right good topic to ask to the community and is it covered the right ways the question asked the right way. And maybe there's an answer D that I didn't think about or maybe one of these answers should not be put forward to the community at this point.
All right. I saw Peter a hand up before but it's down again. I'm not sure if that's on purpose, Peter.
I get tired but I do want to
show your lips movement. I didn't hear you
can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay.
Yeah, I just wanted to point out something. First of all, as a side note, we did a blood stable diffusion last week, so that's there already but on a serious basically when I posed this question, that the amount I had in mind was quite a bit lower than the well let's say 5k ish per surface. I was more or less aiming for a 1k and then the current question doesn't, doesn't that's out of scope of the question basically, it's I'm not saying what is better and not so much about that. But yeah, it's quite interesting. Like if we, in a way, I would almost want to ask a follow up question. If the answer would be yes. Then I would want to also want to have information on what people think that makes sense on a on a cost level, because what if you spend 1000 or 5000 for service? I would rather have five times as much services. But of course, it needs to be enough incentive for people to actually onboard so
yeah, what would you think what would you think if you if you break it down? I mean, it's a very valid point. But if you break it down to a reward for the community that searches and finds a service, community member that helps on boards and the publisher, if you want to reward this person at all, what was your break down VM? What would your preferred amount be?
Yeah, if I wasn't an expert in the field of AI development, I would have a proper answer to this but I wouldn't pretend I haven't. I mean
I feel the that's also something in German made me think like, right now we don't have
like the the person doing the connection. And reaching out to the developer. In this current setup, it's going to be a different one for every surface, while actually could also make sense to have people specialize in that like if you haven't proper network, you know, what's the state of the item? What's what's easy to onboard perhaps, if you have some expertise there I could also see away for just one person reaching out for a lot of different services. I'm sorry for diverging quite a bit. Because yeah,
yeah. So but what how would it change that? I mean, I can put forward 10 services that I think are very worthwhile and then then I get 10 times the award
for the woodwork.
But you don't, you don't have a suggestion on better amounts right now, I mean, that as a side note here, well, first of all, we have to start somewhere and we can't ask all the questions and all the details. So I would start with the fundamental thing. Should we have this as a pool or as a complete round? And then maybe we will take responsibility ourselves to think of also with discussions like these, what proper amounts would be and then maybe, if we do around a governance round like this, next time, we can ask for more details and we can we can go one level deeper and ask some other questions. So yeah, it's a little bit of balance. How How many questions and how complex should we make it? Yeah, I see more hands. Up. Thanks for all your active contributions. Me. Hi.
Thank you very much. Well, I think that we should evolve to our core mission in the funding in order to answer this so called problem or proposal it's not a problem. It's a proposal. I mean, we want to ensure that people will be able to enjoy the use of decentralized AI services. That's the core mission. And we wish to build a network of these decentralized and beneficial AI services. So having this core mission in mind, I think that Peters proposal is very well thought and the answers are quite obvious. And I think that we should follow through in order to onboard any service that falls into our quality checks in terms of background evaluations, quality, security, intention, etc. And I think that we should never forget the core mission of supporting the growth of our decentralized AI platform and marketplace. And that shouldn't be restricted to developing the new service if one already exists. Now, the funding has the purpose of growing singularity net AI marketplace at core, not just funding new projects. So I think that any project that already exists or is in development should fall into a pool
to be able
to implement it service on singularity net gi marketplace. Now there might be different costs for phases. of development that are remaining are simply for onboarding, for adapting to our marketplace, like human resource needed to study our requirements to onboard to adapt technologically, etc. That might be somewhat small or big depending on each services requirements and their current state and expertise and number of people involved in their project. This is why I think they should fall into a pool. And I think they should be able to once introduce the sample opportunity request the proper amount and explain why they need
it. Yeah, yeah, thank you.
While we're talking here, I'm thinking maybe, since this is the first time that we will do this, we should keep it really simple. And suppose and these amounts are completely open for a discussion. And I'll ask you, Mihai, afterwards what you think, on the amount so start thinking about that. Maybe we should keep it simple and say we'll give x amounts to community member that finds X amount for onboarding, an extra amount for the publisher. And with that amounts, the publisher can do some base stuff and can make some adjustments already. If he needs more time than that fixed amount. Then either he should go to another pool where he can offer more sophisticated stuff, or he should do it on his own accounts, with the idea of having also the benefits of that once the service is published. So yeah, rethinking that. I think for the first round, it might be loop one and then we can see what comes out and then yeah, the next time we can we can adjust that either the amounts or the conditions. So me Hi, I gave you a one minute what amounts do you think are appropriate? Well,
that's quite putting me into one minute corner there. But yes,
they live this year. We have no idea Peter also said I have no idea what
sort of challenges and I think that this is more of a research job and the marketing slash sales job combined with partnerships relationships. So considering this skill set and effort needed, I would say that maybe bringing ready to onboard the lead would be worth 500 us in a GI X tokens. And maybe we could consider to double the amount or triple the amount up to one up to 1500 agi x a new up to 1500 us in AGI X tokens. If the recruiter also ensures a successful onboarding. Because I think that maintaining a relationship with the service that you're bringing on.
Right here, these amounts will only be disbursed all the amounts after the service has landed on our platform and
right so unsuccess so onsuccess Yeah,
so that means that whatever we disburse, we will be guaranteed with the service and of course the community can decide if the service is worthwhile if it's not too much overlap with an existing service if it's differentiated, if the quality is high enough, etcetera. So, not everybody should be awarded. But if it's a very valuable service, in the eyes of the community, they can it's already there. So we only need one milestone here. In contrast to other things and the milestone, yes. It's active on our platform.
Yeah, I'm guessing that this could be turned into a mission and proposals could be part of that. For recruiters have said AR services, and they could be voted on to and those that being said a services as leads for onboarding could be incentivized naturally, not just for recommending and introducing them to the marketplace, but also with a higher incentive for engaging into making sure that they're probably on boarded. I mean, being their assistant, their partner throughout the entire onboarding process alongside singularity nets tech team,
slash community. Yeah, yeah. So So I think there will be one proposal for this and that can either be the own board or the researcher or the publisher or the developer themselves. And they should point to the other people that are that could also get part of the allowance, and together they are into it. To make sure that it's a successful onboarding. And if it's not going to be successful. Yeah, then they won't get away with. They're incentivized.
Yeah. Well, if they come by themselves and onboard by themselves, then it means that our marketing has been successful enough to save on those costs. And the technical department is successful enough to save on those costs. So it means that we have a collaboration between marketing and tech, good enough to save on those amounts. But on some cases, it might be beneficial to incentivize recruiters to become also guides for onboarding and partners for onboarding.
What I expect will happen right now and maybe in a few rounds that might be different is that it's actually our community members that will go out to that's what I hope to happen that our community members would go out to AI developers, and then say, Hey, I have this great idea for you. Let me help you onboard your service. And then this community member would would submit a proposal. And then he could say, well, this is the developer and this is we can find a way to for him to give us the wallet address addresses of everybody. But those are details we need to sort out and we need to make sure that there's not too much gaming options there. And but I think the main thing is we should make one person responsible for dispersing the amounts across the different parties, but also these amounts of odd these kind of details are similar to the amounts are separate from the fundamental question, do we want this and I think that's the most important question to ask. And the second one is, is this best appropriate for a pool within round two? Or should we have alternate routes, one round, classic, and then the next round existing services and then classic and then existing services again or another way?
I personally think this is a great idea and we should from my point is you have it as a recurring pool in each of the fundings iterations, because there are numerous services that are waiting to be discovered. And there are multiple people that are waiting to be incentivized in order to participate in this discovery process and in the onboarding process. All right, having a fraction of the funds allocated for this will be highly beneficial.
All right. All right. Thank you. We have to move on also to the other questions.
But is there anybody here who would like to say some more on this other question? Do you miss a question? Do you miss the fruit? Is anything wrong with phrasing? Do you have an idea on what are proper amounts? I would just do you think we should ask for the amount in a separate question to the community. That's also possibility still.
Yeah, I would just caution against making the reward too little because maybe we'll decentralize people like not to go ahead and look for the AI services. So as the other side of the story I think we got to take into consideration
may I suggest something maybe? Oh, sorry. I feel like I keep putting it off with there's a delay.
No, just just go on. That's this is not a formal thing. So please go ahead to enter.
But I wasn't sure if he was finished. I'm so sorry.
I know you're good. I was just gonna say since like most of this proposal, like inherently is going to ask us to do the work up front so people are gonna be like asking themselves whether or not it's going to be worth it. To do it. And yeah, that was my last point that you either
Okay. Um, so just something maybe for the amount of so this is how I'm kind of envisioning it and I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe we'll have a mission that's just dedicated to onboarding new services. And then those people can put in a proposal so people as in either the onboarding or so the recruiters or the developers themselves, but if there is, if both of them are included, then they should be included under one proposal. And just like any other mission, people can put in a proposal and ask for an amount with a clear breakdown of all the expenses. So we don't actually Max the amount of proposal, but they should, they should explain exactly where those expenses are going. But we make it clear within the mission that if you have an onboarding, let's say we decide on one kid and this is something that needs to be decided within the community and what is what's a good incentive. And just say if you have an onboarding, keep in mind that $1,000 For example, from your amount is going to go to these orders, and that we maybe we can get a clearer idea of what those existing services might ask what amount they will be asking for and why they would be asking it based on the expenses that they would break down within the proposal.
Yeah, sure. I think the fundamental part here ish, but correct me if I'm wrong, then that's a very interesting question. Should we have fixed amounts for the surfaces and I'm talking about this first experiment here, this first round so and with a fixed distribution, or should we leave it to the proposers to say, well, this is what we need to get this existing service on the board. I think that's a very important question.
Because either way that proposals need to get voted for so it's just like any other mission, and then we take the responsibility off us for like if there was an onboarding that recruited recruited you into this, you have to make sure that you're part of the team now, till you get the proposal and you do the disbursements as, as you see fit, kind of I'm not sure how that would work in detail, but also then it might mitigate the problem of if I on boarded 10 proposals and I get $10,000 Not exactly because not, not all 10 of them would have succeeded, for example, but I would be a part of those 10 proposals till they get implemented and possibly funded.
Yeah, what? Show questions should should we keep everything open? So also the definer See, so to speak to that also be different for everybody?
Yeah, I'm not sure what that one I'm not sure if it has to be a relationship between the recruiter and the project themselves where they break down this by themselves and then that could create an incentive for me as a finder to be like, okay, you know, make as many relationships as possible. I'm not sure how that would work, or as deep funding in the proposal requirements say that, if you do have a recruiter, you have to allocate $1,000 or something. That's something I think those are details we could probably test out.
Interesting. What I'm thinking right now is that when we start voting, we can create for each question, a new, a new proposal, where we can continue these kind of conversations about detailing. It's also with people who maybe stumbled upon this while voting or getting invited to vote. We can get some more guidance on the details of this because we have some time until so we can vote on some things and we can have the exact definition on how we implement it separate from the votes. But we need to have it defined before around to start if we are going to implement it. But yeah, any anybody else here maybe Peter, what's your idea on this as the father of this proposal? Do you think it should be fixed amount or do you think we should leave it open?
I like the option of keeping it open. I mean, then the defaults can determine where the value is. That makes perfect sounds to me. Good consider putting a gap but at the same time if somebody Yeah, I don't know if it's just imagine there's some actual stupidly impressive AI surface which we otherwise never would get. But they asked for. I don't know 20 Go to onboard. Might even be worth it. If it's actually yeah, yeah. I think putting a cap there is. I mean, the pool itself will need will need to have a gap.
Yeah,
for sure. Yeah. But yeah, for putting a cap on the proposals. I'm not sure what the benefit is there. So yeah, I've been see it.
Just to that point, I think it might also just make it that every mission is treated the same. So then it's less, it's more maintainable over a period of time that we're not like some machines have proposed fixed prices for proposals versus others don't and that way, like organically grows, but I don't.
All right, and then we can have as an example, but also that shouldn't be fixed. And I suppose a possible breakdown where you say finder's fee on borders fee developers feed, but they can add something to that or change it the way they want or we will keep a keep it an open format, which may make sense since it's this the first one to keep it open to see what comes up and then maybe in the next round, we can restrict it a little bit more, if that if that makes sense based on our experience in the first round.
I see a thumbs up there.
All right. Unless anybody so thanks to Anna you actually put your mark on this will change it accordingly. So yeah, this is exactly the kind of conversation that I was looking forward to. So we'll keep it open.
Level the only thing which Boston chat was considering finder's fee as in shape of a percentage of the of the thanks for joining Kevin. Just as the the API calls generate income to have a percentage for that reserved for the finder's fee, which Yeah, it's doesn't really keep it simple to be honest. But I quite like it as well.
Yeah, let's think about it a little bit. Because what I'm thinking about right now we're what I would like to avoid is that there's a community member who goes out to a developer who says, Hey, I have this great idea. Let's create this proposal. And then the developer says, Thank you, I'm fine on my own now, and then all the work of the of the community member finding this person is for nothing if we can avoid this, but
yeah, or if they know that there's a finder's fee, they cannot go through the Finder and go submit a proposal themselves.
Yeah, yeah. So I'm not sure I can 100% avoid this. But that requires a little bit of thinking.
And I mean, I don't think this is a problem that doesn't need like, I think there's a problem that can be solved within the community and trial and error as well. Like it's kind of just how there's in this in in our world today. There's a lot of people that literally work on making these connections and, and having a finder's fee and I'm sure if it works in the real world, it could be replicated this way as well.
Yes, I think if the if the community member is smart, and of course we only have smart community members, I see that every day. They will already created the proposal. They will they will talk to the developer and if the developers interested, they will first create a proposal with the details of the of the surface and then onboard the developer in depth and give him sufficient details of when where etc. And then then this community member will be safe. So yeah, let's not dwell too much on all the details. And I'm sure if we done this once we have new learnings and see what can go wrong and what goes well and and we will think about more things. We have a half an hour left. And two more questions to go. So I suggest we go to the next one. Yeah, well, worse comes to worse. We could if you think we really need more discussion time on this, we can postpone the whole thing and have another discussion next week. But yeah, let's try if we can still wrap it up. today. I will share my screen shortly for the for the question. Just read the question and the answers out loud and then we can have a discussion on it. So question two, should we limit the risks to our deep funding Treasury by defining a minimum exchange rate for AGI x two USD? Answer A Yes, this will remove Treasury risk in extreme scenarios and keep the Treasury sustainable. Be no this will hinder teams to make the necessary investments deep funding and singularity net should take the full risk of downwards and upwards exchange rate movements or see yes, but as a consequence, we should disburse the milestones award at the beginning of each milestone stage not after delivering amounts after delivering a milestone as sh is currently the case. So I stopped sharing I think so the idea is that shoot AGI X go to zero point point. $1. Then we could lose the whole Treasury with just one disbursement theoretically. And even if that would be just temporary or one day or one week, that could pose a risk. So for sustainability of the fund, I have huge confidence in AGI X on the mid and long term. But in the short term, and yeah, there's volatility. So to ensure that we also have sufficient funding on the mid and long term, we could say that we will not go below certain eight year x t which the value or the consequence of this is that right now teams rely on the USD value and based on the USD value, they can hire people or resources or whatever they need. So if we if there will be a risk to them that in some circumstances they may not get the whole estimated amount. Yeah, they may have to act accordingly. So one thing could be that they promised us this milestone but yeah, if for some reason, the AGI X exchange rate will be lower at that time. Yeah, they will get less money so we can't hold them to their end of the promises or promise if we don't keep our end of the promise. That's part of it. The other part of it is this might be so right now we ask the teams give us your deliverable. Of a milestone and show it to us and then we will give you the amount that was needed to create that afterwards. So that's a very good risk management to ensure that people are not running away with the money. But if we do it like this, and there's always a small risk that they wouldn't be paid out the whole estimated amount, maybe then it's better to say, well, we'll do the disbursement at the beginning of that milestone. And when you deliver the milestone, we'll give you the next part for the next milestone. So be honest, this was already a discussion to begin with with the current teams but so I have one concrete question on this thing. Of course first is do you agree with this? Let's not talk too much about the amounts here.
In respect of time. Do you think we should do that as a fundamental conceptual thing or should we keep taking all the risk which is also a valid option and other very specific things that should we ask the community about the moment that we will disburse the milestone or should we simply state if we go for this option, then the consequences that we will disburse the money for each milestone at the beginning?
Any any input is welcome.
I'm not even sure this proposal should be up for voting or entire community. Like I'm gonna look really, really good maybe in financial stability and stuff, but I will assume that the best approach is that when the funding round starts, you actually move your Ajax to dollar amount to make your own liquidity pool. So that there is always the security of the of the funding amounts or
reasons let me let me interrupt you Tifo. There are two reasons that we are not doing it. First of all, it would mean that at the beginning or at the end of around when they're when we have voted that there would be downward pressure, predictable downward pressure on our token price, because we will be having all this these these amounts that were awarded exchanged, to a stable coin. So anybody could calculate how much transactions or what amount of transactions there will be and what and maybe estimate what the effect of the token price would be creating front runner so that's one thing and having it milestone based and doing also, we are just giving AGI X way will mean that it will be there will be no sudden impact that any pressure on our token will be over the long run. The second part of it the moment that we have a utility token. So the only reason that I'm talking here about the value of the token is because the teams are using it for actual work. The moment we are exchanging our utility token to a stable coin means that we are liable to taxation because then it's not just a utility coin, then it's part of our company's treasury. So that's another reason for not exchanging it to to stablecoin
technical reason that's
that's Sorry to interrupt. Your just want to make that point quickly.
Would you go ahead, sir.
What about maybe leaving it also open ended to the people that are requesting the funding like they maybe they take the downward and upward risks like they boats and they on the ground? Okay, maybe we do want to take the risk ourselves, instead of leaving onto singularity net. Milestones are achieved. Would that be a possibility to like leave it open ended as well?
Yeah, we're cutting out a little bit but I think I got your question. Leave it to the teams. Yeah, of course, the teams already have the freedom. We give them AGI X and they can keep it in AGI X or they can turn it to stablecoin. So
they wouldn't need to do anything else. Did the only thing we could change is that we would fix the AGI X amount at the beginning of
of the development period. So we would agree with them. This is what you get an AGI xx no matter what the exchange rate is doing and maybe some teams will be open to that. I thought about maybe having a bull, an AGI X pool and USD value pool. I think the main downside there is that it will add a lot of complexity and it will be very hard to explain to people especially if there are some people that are not very intimate with the blockchain space as such. To explain the difference and the workings etc. That's my main issue here.
Yeah, this is this is a very, I guess, not sensitive topic, but it's important because like we all saw the recent volatility with the AGI token so it's it's an important thing that we should agree on.
All right, so should we think it's a proper topic to put out for a vote
I think so. But I don't know. I'm
Do you have anything to add here? Otherwise I will give the word to join.
Yeah, I guess the connection is kind of bad. But I didn't say in the spirit of decentralization. Maybe we should let the community vote on it. Yes.
Cool. Thanks. Joanna. What's your take on this?
I think yes. I just feel like maybe it's too early for some reason. Like I think we don't have enough experience to dictate if it's like to make a decision like that that early on and then stick with it. Because of the lack of funding rounds that we've had. And I feel like the way I imagined it is we want to incentivize the proposers to utilize AGI acts within their platform as much as possible to reduce the need to actually exchange it. So I don't know how that will come about, but maybe with some experimentation.
Yeah. So I want to point out that this if we do this and we vote on this, the vote will be valid for round two. And after that, we will evaluate whether it makes sense to continue that or not. So that's what we're asking the community to
do the first round of people that got funding like Did they have any troubles with the volatility like how was their experience with receiving the funding? No, that's
that's going pretty well, what I do see is that when I make a disbursement I look at the spot market at that moment. And that's the amount that I will transfer and yeah, it can change from day to day. But it doesn't matter to them because I notify I made the disbursements and then they can do with it whatever they want. And if they're quick, yeah, they could they can put it in stable coin or exchange. It to USD somehow if they want or leave it in AGI x if they if they want that. But there's not a real issue. But we did award in the first rounds. At least put forwards a million dollar in AGI x so if we do that in the second round, also in the third round also, then, and we are just at the beginning of the disbursements of round one. I think maybe 20 25% of the total amount has been disbursed. So the rest is still out there. So with the next round, there will be more tokens out there and with the third round more which may overlap to work and to an extent so the risks on the Treasury would be increased. So therefore, I thought it might be prudent to Yeah, we will take a lot of the risk. But not all of the risk. There will be some downward stop moment where we say well we'd rather have some damage. To the current rounds of teams are the people who would like to have a milestone award disbursed right now, but ensure that we have sufficient funds also for the years to come. And that's that's kind of the balance to avoid risking all of the Treasury in a short time span where maybe the prices may be low due to the general market or whatever and as a consequence of that, miss out on huge opportunities later on. That is the kind of balance that that I would be looking for.
So in terms of the Treasury, I guess like you said singularity net would take the risk, but each projects that is receiving funding, like you said, they can just transfer the AGI X stablecoin at any time. So like as long as they're aware of that fact, right when you make the transfer if they don't want to keep an AGI X just so they can keep their amount of set at the like funding amount. They should know that hey, we can just transfer it to stable coin and whenever we need the AGI x we can always transfer the stable coin back to AGI X.
Yeah, but I'm trying here to reduce the risk fishing Yeah, singularity net not for the teach that that is clear they can protect themselves as they want. But suppose, as an example, that AGI x is 10 $10 and they have been awarded 10k Then they would get 100,000 agi x. Now suppose for what some weird reason that for three months long. The price of ATI X would not be $10 cents, but it would be points $1 cents, that would mean that instead of the 100,000 agi x, we would have to pay out 10 million AGI exe and just because over this period of three months. The tokens appear to be for some reason very low. I don't expect that to happen. Let's make that clear. This is just mitigation of an extreme scenario just to make sure if there is really an extreme scenario in the market, we are protected and we can ensure our sustainability and in the long run.
What have you said like an average price for the past six months?
Yeah, but that wouldn't help the teams because then they would show the only thing that is relevant for the teams is the is the value the moment it is disbursed because that is what they can can monetize. All right. So if it was a very high price in the past yeah the and now today it's very low and I give it to them today. Yeah, then they will still get a lot lower God less than and then then what they would deserve so it will still give them It won't solve that problem. So what I would like to do is always give them the dollar value of today that is most there and that will help them but just have this insurance against a very sudden and fast extreme downfall.
Yeah, this is a tricky challenge to solve.
So ideally, we would have this insurance and it will never be used because the price will always stay at a reasonable level and hopefully grow beyond that. i That's also why I don't want to talk about the price right now. I think it's more like the conceptual thing because this is that level, we would have to define right before we start the next round. Maybe things have changed at that time. So it's very hard to define that level right now. And it will also probably be a different level from round to round. So it will if we will do it more often but the conceptual thing of having a lower boundary as a risk for extreme situations to protect the Treasury from sudden strong depletion to make sure that we can fund more teams in the long run at the expense of the current teams basically. That is the question. And then the question next to it is Would that mean automatically that we will start paying out disbursements before the delivery at the start of a milestone instead of at the end?
Yeah, tough stuff. Yeah.
So So I think the main question here actually could be if this suitable to ask the community or is it too complex and too technical, to to be asking the community?
And how about rather than asking them to be experimenting for around is that possible? Like we said and revisiting after? Yeah, sure. It's a at least we can say we've tried both.
Yeah, what anybody else has an opinion on this? Yeah, I kind of feel it's picking between two evils. Peter. I see your lips move, but I don't hear you. That's so weird. Yeah. Now it's great again,
not sure why it's doing that. But
I was able to get really
well. To me, it was like choosing between two evils. But if I had to choose between the Treasury surviving or the team's not being able to deliver milestones, it's easy choice, right?
Yeah. Especially reading needs to live on us for whether it's too complex to ask the community don't think it is done you
need to dive into the in the into the numbers. And yeah, then. I don't know. It does get complex actually. Because what kind of minimum do you define?
Well, this is the I think this is the same kind of thing as with the first question on existing surfaces, so we should ask for the conceptual thing now. Then take our responsibility in making the detail definition. And then come back to that after the round and see if we made the route right configuration, and then maybe ask about that next time. Defer to Oh, you have something to add.
Yeah. But I have to say if it is not just go to the committee voting, open up an opportunity for like an answer D, where the answer idea is that when the time comes, we then have a governance discussion. How do we handle this? The likes a specific, specific situation. So it's not it's basically pushing down the can but that's an option to choose like people sometimes think like, I'm feeling like we are good that even if it goes to 100% down or 300, but it's the way it's designed right now these fields Okay, and don't want to just convey to express that I don't have any opinion basically. PC,
the first thing comes to mind is when that situation happens, the teams would like to be paid out, and we don't have the luxury of organizing a vote because that will take some time, etc. And the teams still need to pay their bills. Another reason is that we should decide whether we want to start paying out the disbursements at the beginning or at the end of the milestone, which is also related and decision that we need to make a hat. One thing where I do see an opening, very good point actually. Suppose that a team has all mastered milestones or go flawlessly but only milestone five, they got 60% less than was expected due to some kind of crazy volatility on the market. Yeah, I can imagine that at the end of the road. There can be some kind of negotiation with a team and that we say well, our token is up now so much. Me we can still compensate you for that so we could give ourselves some freedom and flexibility for these kinds of things. Listen, guys, we still I see another hand up me Hi. But we have we are almost at the end of the session officially. But we also still have another question to go. So I'd like to wrap this up. But I don't have a clear idea yet. So I'm thinking if we are going to ask this. If we're going to put it forward then probably will have to change that milestone disbursement anyway and not ask that to the community. I'm not 100% sure yet if we should ask this question to the community or as UN saying, just experiment with it and see what will happen. If anybody has a clear opinion on that. Please.
Yeah, I kind of take back what I said about asking to it also I think we should leave it up to more, I guess, knowledgeable people about what's going on with the tokenomics and the price action because the community might not like be fully involved in this decision. Right now. All right.
If there if there are no people that are strongly in favor of asking the community, then I would say maybe we will take our responsibility and then ask afterwards what they thought about it and if it's a good idea or something, if it makes sense afterwards. Maybe Maybe that will be better than then putting this forward to the community right now. Which is actually a surprising result of having this conversation. With the community.
But interesting, nonetheless, Peter does
make me wonder if we just did not put it forward. Would you then simply put forward two questions. I think so. Right.
Yeah, sure. Sure. We said at the beginning two or three questions, but we can also decide that for question one. We do want to ask an additional question. A second question based on the amount or something that could also be possibility. But let me just quickly, let's I'm not sure if you're pressed in time, and of course, please leave. I have a little bit of spare time, but not too much. Let's see if we can address the third question. I'll share my screen. And yeah, and if you have any other ideas, please put it in the chat and Peter may ask you to give to take a look at the chat because I can I know myself. Once I start reading the chats I'm not listening anymore. So I'm trying to focus on on the vocal part. Right. Last question for two nights, an interesting discussion. So thanks a lot already for this. Really appreciate it. Question three. Maybe this is an easier one. The question is should we have a small pool and round two just for projects in the ideation phase? And there are only two answers in this case? Yes. Even though there is no immediate impact on the platform, it enables people to bring the best ideas to maturity and get early feedback. And be no if the team is not able to create a proposal with sufficient detail. They're probably not ready to get funded at all. So let me give a little bit of context here. The idea is to put to have a pool for projects in the ideation phase. Originally in round one, the condition for every project wash they should support the growth of the platform, usually by utilizing surface or creating a surface. But in the case of an idea, there is no impact, no immediate impact to the platform. So it wouldn't be a valid proposal in round one. Now what we can do in round two is say we'll have a smaller pool with a smaller amount of money and maybe a maximum per proposal where people can put forward their ideas. They will still need to define some deliverables like I will create all the user stories I will create a technical design or whatever for which they will be rewarded and we will give we'll get some this way we'll give some extra attention to projects in the ideation states. And we will give the people who forward these these ideas a better option to start creating a team around that because they have a little bit of money they can use to pay people to detail their proposal, for instance, create some technical details on the proposal, which seems to be the most straightforward thing.
Okay, I'll shut up.
Feedback any ideas from this will just be default. Yeah.
Yeah. I strongly believe that this is kind of a proposal issued that continuity, and perhaps even at epitope play the because it these are ideations. I'd like incubation style proposals, at least the first one then, isn't it? And there could be a bit perhaps a smaller scope of the roadmap they are proposing. So yes, the budget sometimes. Even if it's smaller, it doesn't mean the roadmap isn't small. So having perhaps set ads where the rich say yes, but the results have to be kind of auditable or seeable in like three months or six months and this way, it's easier to measure of how these small funds have to incubate and have an impact on these people who are now experiencing how to how to get funded and how to write proposals and what is expected from them.
Yeah, I see my sharing on still, so I'm highlighting the sentence. So I would add a few conditions here. So I am going to add a condition that they need to define a few deliverables. So either a technical design or whatever, just like a regular project. So it's not just talking it's also creating something they have to create something. And I would add that it would only be valid if it has to go to actually submit the proposal to a regular pool in the next round and the next round will be maybe three months later. So that would already implicitly mean that they would have three months time to bring it to the level of maturity that it is ready for a full fledged proposal. Good point, and I'll stop sharing
anyone else?
No. I would add on maybe like just like the funding goes through the voting process and the ideas with the most votes, get the funding, I think this ideation, phase or ideation, idea, whatever you want to call it should also like be presented to the community and then the community can vote on the ideas also. And then those are the ones that go to the next step.
Yeah, of course, that's that's completely the idea. Right? So people it's just that we make a special pool for ideation proposals. And the reason for that is that we can add a maximum amount which is lower than for complete proposals, and also to separate it so it's more clear to everybody Oh, this is just something in the ideation phase, that needs more detailing and not a full fledged proposal yet. But yeah, so if we get 10 proposals for 10 ideas, then it's up to the community to say well, we should award all of them and enable all of them to go to maturity and give them a little bit of money for that or tokens. Or say well, the these these five ideas are really, we don't believe in them anyway, so we don't want to invest in bringing them to maturity and that will be perfectly valid. So yeah, yeah. 100%
Yeah. Anyone else?
I think this is actually an easier one than the previous ones, which is a good sign. And yeah, that's, let's put it forward with the proper conditions. So if we go to voting, also to everybody listening here right now. We'll just put these three questions and answer or two maybe in the voting portal, but we will refer to the article that are shared here on the screen, which we will be publishing shortly. For the context, maybe we can also add something on our voting portal. For context that remains to be seen. But this context is important, right? So and we won't make it all part of the question and the answer because that will make it too long. So we'll keep that separate in separate explanation, but there we will explain these things like you will need to have deliverables it will need a proper vote anyway. etc.
One small thing on this in a way, it's the same as for question one also being a small dedicated pool would be here follow the same logic and not for example, not put any cap on proposals.
Yeah, would follow the same logic in the trigger a cap on the pool, so that we know that not the whole what is the maximum amount that goes out to ideation, which will be maybe I don't know, 10% of the total amount or something like that. But yeah, we'll leave it so I mean, in this case, I can imagine that there's also much differentiation. So maybe somebody has a great idea, but it needs real in depth analysis of specific technical domain or whatever to come up with a proper proposal and a proper estimation of the costs. And time involved of that proposal. So that could be more substantial. Yeah. So yeah. Short, Long, long story short, yes, we should keep it open.
In my opinion.
I do agree, I think that the only risk with having a pool like this was that where he underfunding parts of business development, which they otherwise would do anyway. More or less.
If they will do it anyway, then, probably it would also be part of your roadmap and their milestone and their estimations. But that is actually question B, right or answer B. If they are not able to create that proposal in sufficient detail, then probably they are not mature enough so we shouldn't be funding them at all. So that will be your answer then if you think that and of course everybody can still create a proposal in a regular pool and then they could even make some explorative parts. Part of that but I know that some people don't have the capability for, for instance, for the technical analysis. And then this could just give them that little bit of support to find somebody to help them and to get some more visibility and also to get some feedback on their ideation.
Not clear to me.
All right. All right. Anybody else?
Nice. I wouldn't say I agree. And I'd like to. I like the idea of pushing this proposal forward, because I think there's a lot of times that there's a great proposals are in ideation, but they don't have enough funding to put it forward. So this could be a good incentive for people for sure.
All right. Yeah. I think it's a great experiment. And yeah, I think we'll learn from it and we'll see if this is accepted by the community and we will have that in the next rounds. Yeah, I have no idea if there will be many or a few and what will happen and they will actually make it to full proposals or not. Maybe it will also protect us from immature proposals being voted upon, and then not delivering, if we have that. So that could be even another factor that just pops up. But yeah, we'll be interesting. So yeah, thank you for that support. So I think the outcome of today's discussion is that we will probably as I see it now. Go forward with two of the three proposed questions. The middle question, we can actually effectuate that but without asking the community because it's quite technical. And maybe we can better do it and then evaluate afterwards what if it had any impact of existing surfaces what we changed is that we will not have fixed amounts but we will leave that open. Also to break down in different roles etc. We will break that we will leave that open for the proposers. But we will put it forward and also the exact amount, though Yeah, that that's open. Yes. So we don't need to have follow up question on that. Anyway. Thinking about it. Yeah, and then we'll have the ideation pool and put that forward. And that's quite straightforward. So, yeah, I think we covered some ground here. And we have some results and thanks to these discussions and have some new inputs that we can use, and have a better proposal on the better experience. I think the nice thing of these two questions is that they are very concrete, and that our community members can identify themselves easier with them than the middle one. So I'm looking forward to see what will happen that when we put it actually forward to voting. anyone who'd like to have some last words on this
then
only 11 minutes past time, which is better than I expected 11 minutes ago. Yeah. leaves me to say thank you all. I usually appreciate your inputs, and it really helps us going forward. And anybody who is watching this and has a different opinion or thinks we should have think we should have put other proposals forward, etc. The only thing I can say, Join the conversation next time. You're very welcome. So thank you all and see you next time.
All right. See you. There was fun recording. We'll we'll see when when we'll have the next meeting. We did weekly meetings going up to this governance proposal. I can imagine we don't need a meeting while the voting is actually going on. It wouldn't make too much sense I think and have the next meeting. When we have to result in of the voting Do you agree with that?
Yeah, sounds good. All right.
I think technically we could do another one. Like right now we will pretty much do what processes and there are some things which will kind of need to be figured out for example. While the like if we just bought marketing initiatives, bull dueling bull, perhaps bigger and smaller category, I think we will merge those and just have proposals for projects. And then if we have ideation pool, and we have a onboarding services book, I'm completely fine. And I would completely trust you to assess these percentages, for example, but that there's quite some stuff that still needs figuring out if you
were I wouldn't trust me too much. If I were you. Alright, right. That's an interesting point. So the point you're making Peter actually is we also have other changes that we're proposing and we also have to think about what to do with funds for pool if nobody reacts if there are no proposals. Do you want to use that font for another group, for instance, which is something that I have been writing on in this, this article, so yeah, yeah, we could call it so. So I think it's best during voting that we don't talk too much. About the proposals that are being voted upon. Because it would be a little bit awkward to have some kind of deferred there in the middle of the voting process. But we could could have a discussion on on the other things that I didn't mention, and especially when I when I've published this article, then then it's also more obvious to talk about it, maybe. So. Yeah, I'm always open for a nice discussion. I'm not sure about you.
Me too. Great. Thank you.
Well, then just do it next week as well. And there's enough to discuss indeed, you're right there, Peter. So
I mean, we have to talk to these dogs every morning but it's nice to have a brother
to to to know as well spoken. Well said. Yeah. All right, then. Then let's just have another meeting next week. And then we can discuss all the things on my mind that I think we should change without asking the community specifically about that. Cool
scenario. It's a short meeting and then yeah, that's also fun. Probably won't
be a short meeting. But we'll see. We'll see. Thanks a lot. Also for that last suggestion, and then hope to be seeing you all next week also for new faces. Didn't hear too much of you didn't want to put you on the spot. Also, because you're from catalyst and maybe not that familiar yet with singularity net and deep funding. But, yeah, most of the time, you can just use your common sense and don't feel limited or restricted in any way to give your opinion even though you have no deep knowledge on deep funding. There's no such thing because we just started so all opinions are welcome.
Okay, sure. For sure. I will try to do more research on this and probably have more opinion next time. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.
Now I'm really looking forward to it. Thanks me and see you next time. Thanks a lot. Yes. All right. Have a great evening morning. Afternoon next
experiment the shallow pumping
ah
very interesting fight you know that deep is actually an acronym right? It's not the word deep it was decentralized ecosystem proposals that that's what it was meant to do not know Yeah, it didn't know we decided not to make
three characters out of the four we're making sense. Not the best
in depth proposals didn't depth funding didn't sound right. So. Yeah. But I think it's an interesting concept. He'll be
cute, right? But just three, four tokens, maybe two.
Yeah, well, yeah, I can tell you
that next time. I'm, I'm going to end this have another call later tonight. Thanks a lot. guys. See you next time. See ya.
