Space Summary
The Twitter Space Bulls on the Block Weekly | 12 Oct | @apecoin @nifty_island hosted by BullsOnTheBlock. Bulls on the Block Weekly brought together @apecoin and @nifty_island to venture into the fusion of art and technology. The space delved into the boundless creativity that emerges when art meets technology, showcasing the transformative power of NFTs in reshaping digital art landscapes. Community collaboration, innovative partnerships, and experimental expressions were highlighted as key drivers of creative exploration in the digital world. By redefining traditional boundaries and embracing digital innovations, the space envisioned a future where art and technology seamlessly converge to inspire new artistic narratives and experiences.
For more spaces, visit the Art page.
Space Statistics
For more stats visit the full Live report
Questions
Q: How does the fusion of art and tech redefine traditional boundaries?
A: The blending of art and technology challenges conventional norms and creates novel forms of expression.
Q: Why is community engagement essential in the art and tech fusion space?
A: Engaging with communities fosters support, feedback, and growth opportunities for projects.
Q: What are some benefits of exploring NFTs in the digital realm?
A: NFT exploration offers unique monetization channels, ownership rights, and digital collectibles.
Q: How can collaborations between projects drive innovation in the art and tech sphere?
A: Partnerships can combine expertise, resources, and creativity to push boundaries and unlock new possibilities.
Q: In what ways can the digital world enhance artistic experiences?
A: Digital platforms allow for interactive, immersive, and dynamic art experiences, transcending traditional mediums.
Q: What opportunities exist for creators in the art and tech fusion domain?
A: Creators can experiment with cutting-edge technologies, reach broader audiences, and redefine artistic narratives.
Q: How does the fusion of art and tech contribute to the evolution of digital storytelling?
A: Innovative technologies enable new storytelling formats, interactive narratives, and enriched user experiences.
Q: Why is experimentation crucial in pushing the boundaries of the digital world?
A: Experimentation breeds innovation, sparks creativity, and leads to the discovery of uncharted artistic territories.
Q: In what ways can the digital landscape inspire future innovations?
A: By pushing boundaries and embracing new technologies, the digital world serves as a playground for groundbreaking developments and creative breakthroughs.
Q: What role do NFTs play in redefining how we perceive digital art?
A: NFTs introduce digital scarcity, provenance, and ownership concepts that revolutionize the value and perception of digital artworks.
Highlights
Time: 00:15:42
Art-Tech Fusion Exploration Unveiling the endless possibilities when art and technology collide.
Time: 00:25:18
NFT Innovations and Opportunities Diving into the world of NFTs and their transformative impact on digital art.
Time: 00:35:56
Community Collaboration for Creative Projects Highlighting the power of community support in driving innovative art and tech initiatives.
Time: 00:45:29
Future Trends in Digital Creations Discussing upcoming trends shaping the future of digital art and technological integration.
Time: 00:55:17
Interactive Digital Experiences Exploring the immersive and interactive nature of digital platforms in art and technology.
Time: 01:05:42
Innovative Partnerships for Artistic Advancement Examining the role of collaborations in pushing the boundaries of creative exploration.
Time: 01:15:29
Artistic Storytelling in the Digital Age Adapting traditional storytelling to a digital landscape for enhanced audience engagement.
Time: 01:25:18
Experimental Artistic Expressions Embracing experimentation as a catalyst for innovation and artistic evolution.
Time: 01:35:56
The Future of Digital Art Envisioning a future where art and technology intertwine seamlessly for unprecedented creative endeavors.
Time: 01:45:29
NFTs and Digital Ownership Exploring the implications of NFTs on digital ownership and the art market.
Key Takeaways
- Art and technology can synergize to push the boundaries of the digital world.
- Exploring NFTs opens up exciting opportunities for both creators and collectors.
- Community engagement is vital for the success and sustainability of projects in the art and tech fusion space.
- Innovative collaborations between projects like @apecoin and @nifty_island can drive creativity and advancement.
- The intersection of art and tech can lead to groundbreaking developments and new artistic expressions.
- Embracing digital innovation can redefine traditional concepts of art and technology.
- Experimentation with NFTs can pave the way for unique and immersive digital experiences.
- The fusion of art and tech highlights the evolution of creative and technological landscapes.
- Exploring the limits of the digital world can spark new ideas and inspire future innovations.
- The convergence of art and technology opens doors to innovative ways of artistic expression and storytelling.
Behind the Mic
Technical Difficulties
Sadeena, it having some technical difficulties with the music. We'll get started in just a minute. Hopefully I'll get this music going, but just bear with me for a minute here. Gets bigger. The triggers call empty your park running around the family with a pocket full of shell no family with a pocket full of shell rain round no family with a pocket full of shells. With. A pocket full of shells weapon not food not hold my shoes not need just be the war cannibal animal that used to be in library line I cut a line cemetery now who we don't know keeps the contract. With a. Pocket full of shells they manage out the family with a pocket full of shells.
Introduction to Bulls on the Block
All right, welcome, everyone, to another episode of Bulls on the Block. Weekly. We come to you every Saturday at 10:00 a.m. estimated. I know this is early for some of you, and for others, for everyone, actually, it's the weekend, which is valuable time. Valuable time to unwind, spend time with the family. So we appreciate you joining us and listening in, as always. We're talking bulls on the block. We're talking eight coin dow, nifty island, and sandboxdao. Usually the topics that we run through of late over the past couple of weeks or week and a half, I'd say we've been talking about AIP 466. So I'm sure that's going to be a big topic of discussion. And apologies at the top for the technical difficulties. I've got my Spotify up on my web browser, and I played the song and I could hear it playing in the kitchen on the echo dot.
Discussion of AIP 466
Okay, so AIP 466. So just to recap for people, there's been, if you don't know, AIP 466 is an apecoindao proposal, and the proposal is to shut down. It's titled non essential working groups, but it's essentially set to shut down all of the working groups. It has incredible amount of favor going through the voting process. However, it's not without controversy, and there's been quite a number of discussions on spaces, including our space last week. And then I was able to join Aaron's space delegate this earlier this week, where it was topic of discussion as well. And so the controversy is not so much around the proposal itself to shut down working groups, but I'd say more the context around it, the context around how it went through the administration process and then the lack of clarity on the house, like, how was it all gonna work? And so I think, to me, I think those were a lot of the drivers for the controversy.
Derek Smart's Medium Article
I do feel just. And also one of the co authors, Derek Smart, has published a medium article that I'd say filled in some of the blanks, and it certainly gave his perspective on not only the proposal, but a lot of the context around the proposal. Aaron, have you had a chance to read through the medium article yet? Oh, my God, it's so fucking long. I mean, I sure think did. Holy smokes. Yeah. Talk about burying the lead. Right? Like, I was sent the link pretty soon after it came out. I read it through and I said, I don't understand what he's talking about. And then it took me like 20 minutes, 30 minutes to read it. And then by the time I finished reading it, I had to, you know, refresh it because he added a new part in the beginning to clarify his comments that he no longer supported the AIP. Because if you read through the rest of it, unless he changed it, he doesn't.
Confusion Surrounding Support for the Proposal
He never says that. So anyway, he has. He's taken back his support of his own AIP, although we've been told by the other author that he hasn't taken back. And I just say that as information. I don't. I don't know where that information is coming from, but were told that he's not, that Derek hasn't taken it back. But, I mean, unless Derek changes it, then I'll believe what. What Derek has said, unless there's clarification to that. So. Yeah, and I think my interpretation, right as I read through it, and I read it when he already had that section up at the top saying that he was withdrawing his support.
The Proposal's Justification
However, when you read through the article really gives justification for the proposal and some context around the proposal. So, you know, I think, you know, on my 160 minutes trail run a lot of thinking time. And, you know, I was thinking about this topic quite a bit. And, you know, I do. I do feel deep down that. And I could sense Derek's frustration through it, too. Right. He's one of the people. There's not many. You know, there's a lot of people that say they want to build together, grow together in web three. And, you know, we're one community, but there aren't many people who really mean it and they like saying it, but they don't really put their actions where their words are and put the effort in and really put themselves out there to try to make things better.
Opinions on Derek Smart's Approach
I will give Derek that. I think he could sense it in the medium article also. He's trying to share his life experiences. I disagree with the approach personally, but I do think he's coming from it, from the right place. In his heart, it's a little bit. Of a monkey's paw, right? And if people aren't familiar with monkey's paw, it's like the short story about this magical monkey's paw that grants a wish, but every time it does, it's in a really fucked up way. And I think he wanted this to happen so badly and to get this out so much that he accepted compromises that were given to him by the special counsel, which he didn't love.
Questions and Concerns
I mean, this is coming from him during the delegate, this space, if you remember the first question I asked, and again, I hadn't made up my mind at this point, so it wasn't like I was angling for one thing. But the first question I asked is, why? Is it because I'm a writer? So I look at words and I said, why does it say all non essential working groups when it's all of the working groups? Why not just say, shut down all the working groups? I said, was it meant as a joke that none of them are essential? And he said, oh, well, it wasn't supposed to include the GWG. Now, again, I want to make a disclaimer.
Transparency and Accountability
I think it's really important that everybody tell everybody what their bags are, right? So you. You have an understanding. And I don't know if everybody's doing that right now, but, you know, delegate, this is sponsored by the GWG. I'm part of Apu, which is part of the GWG. And I also am in the small committee's grant group. The small grant. What are the fuck? It's called the small grant committees group. And I'm not paid a lot, but. But I am paid. It certainly wouldn't make me not vote for this, because I'm getting paid a fairly small amount for my work.
Reform Versus Dissolution
But I do want everybody to know that I do get paid by the GWG. Now, that being said, I'm all for the dissolution of. Well, I'm not all for the dissolution of the working groups. I am for reform for all the working groups. And the special counsel. I think this is a throw the baby out with the bath water kind of thing. Right. Are there stewards who are not doing their jobs? Seems like it. Maybe they should resign or get fired. Are there weaknesses in the whole structure of the working groups? Yes. Should we get rid of the working groups, or should we fix those weaknesses?
Legislation and Proposal Concerns
This bill, I'm okay with this bill, this proposal going through code of bills, I think about it as legislation. Yeah. With the compromises and everything else. It feels like it, but, yeah, but. But ultimately, like, if it goes through okay. Right. Like, there's no working group here that has been doing things perfectly, and they sort of, they certainly could do things a hell of a lot better. But it just comes off as this Hodgepodge, not explained, not fully detailed proposal, which is not great.
Lack of Clarity
You know, Derek was talking about sunsetting the dow, the groups, meaning that they would have a certain amount of time to wind things down. Well, there's no time clarified there. And he used words like, I imagine, and my understanding would be, you know, I'm probably paraphrasing him, but you can't really do that with things like this. The council has, you know, put a ips into effect immediately once they've passed before. And so I have to assume, and maybe I'm wrong, but I have to assume that anything that can be shut down will shut, will be shut down immediately.
Human Element in Governance
So, you know, and then the whole thing about whether they get paid or not, look, do I care if the stewards, you know, get paid for the full amount or not? I mean, I, no, it's in their contract that it can be dissolved. And while I care personally for these people, you know, and I don't want to see them hurt. I mean, you know, it's for the good of the dao, if that's what the Dao decides. But, but there's no specificity. Specificity in there. You know, he thinks there is. But I asked Ernest, who's a, you know, a lawyer, one of those lawyer people, I said, how does this read to you?
Complex Legal Terminology
Because it says, I forgot what it says. Exactly. But it's basically like in arrears that we paid in full for anything in arrears. Well, rears means what's already happened. It doesn't mean moving forward. And again, like, I don't think the stewards should be paid for their full term if they're all basically fired. But. But that wasn't even Derek's understanding of it, necessarily, so it. Look, I still stand by what I said and delegate this, and I'll land the plane here.
Future Voting Procedures
Thank you. I think this is gonna pass, right? I mean, I think in the NBA group, the vote is right now, and this is public, so I'm not telling you guys anything that you can't look up yourself. It is right now, 72 to one, meaning 72 for closing down the working groups, one against. I have a sneaking suspicion the one against is earnest, and if that is the case, then I'm going to join him, because I was almost going to abstain from this one. But if my buddy Earnest is standing there by himself as the one against vote, even if it's not going to change anything, I don't feel good about that.
Concerns About the Proposal
So there's enough wrong with the bill. Again, the proposal that I'm okay voting against it, even if I get some hate from my fellow NBA's. Hopefully not. Hopefully, we can all disagree and be friends, but I'm not going to let Earnest hang out there by himself. So I'll. I'll be voting against it. Even though. That's very kind of you, Aaron.
Frustrations with the Proposal
Well, even though I think that the stewards maybe should get a vote of confidence, up or down, things should be reformed, and there should be a hell of a lot more transparency. I don't know why we don't have any AI bot transcripts of the meetings, but anyway, so that's my opening statement here. Yeah, thanks, Aaron. And, yeah, and, you know, that's a bit of my frustration with the proposal. I'm all for change and evolving, and it's silly to think that in an environment as new as this is that you're going to get it right the first time, right off the bat, and it's going to be something that lives for ages.
Need for Evolution
So I'm all for making the change evolving. To me, the other big piece of it, besides some of the ambiguity on how this was going to happen, it was also disenfranchising. Other good people know at the top, I said, I think Derek's coming at it from the right area. Well, some of the stewards are coming at it from the right area also. And you could disagree with their approach or the way they want to do it, but I think what we've done here is, and you can see, I'll stick up for big bull, who's not here, right.
Disenfranchising Good Contributions
He hasn't been on this space now two weeks in a row. Well, he joined late last week, but clearly it zapped his energy around this topic. And though the approach is disenfranchising some good people, that could help make it better if it was approached differently. And that's my big thing with it, is, to your point earlier, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I think we did that with some good people who have been involved by essentially calling them non essential. Sorry.
Current Stewardship and Leadership
Just one quick thing here in Landra. I apologize, but they have the ability to do that right now. So, you know, as much as I love big bullet, all city and all the stewards, like within the scope of their, you know, their charters or whatever you want to call it, they have the ability to do all the things you're talking about now. It's not like they're held back on making changes. It's not like the special counsel or the GWG or anybody is not allowed to be more transparent or to make moves that, you know whatever it is that we're talking about in this scenario, they could do those things right now.
Proactive Change Needed
It shouldn't take a proposal to dissolve for them to start making progress. And by the way, I love the GWG. I think they do great things. And, you know, even Derek was saying that he thinks that, you know, they're. They're a good working group, but all the other working groups and I have friends on every single working group, I think that they're. A lot of them are sandbagged. Like, there's not a lot that they can do in certain circumstances. And I think if were to look at that and actually, you know, have clarity from the stewards, they would tell you that.
Opportunities for Improvement
And maybe we can make changes in that way. But the stewards are active right now. They can. They can make changes whenever they want up to a certain point. It's a fair point. Absolutely. I mean, some of. Some of this feedback is something like getting an AI bot and having transparency around meeting minutes is. And have. Having a transcript around that. You could do that today. Right. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. Agree? Agree 100%.
Personal Disclosures
Lands there. Yeah. So my disclosures is, I'm not paid by anyone. I'm not involved in anything, really. So that's my disclosure. This has just been setting off fireworks all over the place. I mean, like you said in the beginning, the context of this situation is more pronounced and popular than the actual proposal itself. And it has been. It has been fascinating to watch. I read the article last night after it was sent to me, and I thought it was an impressive display of showing your receipts, especially that timeline.
Acknowledging Derek Smart's Efforts
I think that thing clarified a lot of why I read it after Derek added the. The part in the beginning saying he withdrew his support from it, I thought it clarified that. And, yeah, it was hella long, but to be expected when you read something from Derek, I think at this point, it's safe to say that's to be expected. But in any case, wow, that gif in the beginning, the Joker gif of. I think my feedback to him was that this definitely seemed like it may have burned some bridges on the way out of. And even though I thought I was impressed with the level of detail that he brought to the table on that.
Community Tensions
And, yeah, I still think it feels like my friends are fighting. It feels like. Feels like the AIP 466. I read it as well. And, yeah, it shouldn't take a proposal for the accountability and transparency to reveal itself. Like, you can be live streaming your meetings, you can be providing meeting minutes. There's a whole lot of the stuff that the groups could voluntarily be doing to demonstrate their. Their actions, and I do that in my professional life a lot so that this can happen. But, yeah, I, too, am sympathetic to.
Concerns Over Disagreements
You know, I've been hearing big bull talk, and. And I'm. I've liked big bull a lot, and I like Derek a lot, so it feels. Feels weird to see them at odds, and I regret that's happening. I just. I want us to be a good, happy family, and I can understand how. How there people can disagree. Reasonable people can disagree on this, so. Yeah. Wow. This is. This is really. This is kick the Hornets nest, and. And it's going all over the place. That's where I land my plane.
Hope for DAO Unity
Well, thank you, Lanzer. Yeah, I mean, clear. Clearly, a lot of. A lot of. A lot of controversy around. Around this one. It is kicking a hornet's nest, like you said, it's certainly stirring some things up. And I hope, in the back of my head, I hope that. I know there's some thoughts that there's forces that are trying to either just dissolve the DAO or take over the DAO or centralize the DAO, which obviously flies in the face of a DAO, which is a decentralized, autonomous organization, which clearly, it's not quite there yet. I don't know many daos that are quite there yet to the t, but I'm hopeful that there aren't those forces at play here. And, you know, it's a shame if there are those forces, you know, pitting. Pitting good people against each other. And I think it's a lesson for all of us to not allow negative forces to pit ourselves against good people just because we have opposing views.
Timeline and Changes in Proposals
Also, I think it's really important that we remember that, not just in this web three space. I see it happening in other aspects of life, in society also. Yeah, you could tell, like, in the timeline of Derek's medium article, like, right there on September 7 and September 24, it talks about how he felt that if he didn't make the changes, it would spell the end of his proposal. So he made the changes and then, oh, wait, hold on. It has to be all of them. And that kind of shows. I'm not sure what to call it. G is us is in there. He usually calls it the tapestry. And Anthony, you're calling.
Controversies Among Peers
I would say, I would hate to see that there would be people behind pulling the strings and causing reasonable people to go at each other. I would hate to discover that as well. And I wonder at some of the things he revealed in the timeline. It's very fascinating to see the inner workings of how he went from non essential not being everything to, I have to say, everything. And that includes stewards and some working groups that really have been proving their worth. If even we disagree with how they're run. Well, that's unfortunate.
Understanding Tao Procedures
The way it works, Lanzer, is, and you probably know this, you know a lot about Daos, and. But the way it works is that once it goes into admin review, they can just sit on it. They can kill it, you know, just, they can send it back and say, oh, it's not good. And the reason why, when I ran for special counsel last time, I said, I want transparency in the admin review phase, there was like, oh, why? We can't. Why can't you? It's a dow. We're going to be less transparent than other centralized, you know, bodies of government.
Dissolution of Groups and Trust
So what Derek, you know, has said in spaces, and what he's written down is that originally it was sent back by the admin, by special counsel during admin review, saying it had to be broken up into three separate aips, you know, one to dissolve each group, which I think makes a lot more sense, to be quite honest. I agree with the special counsel there, and that clawbacks had to be taken out. Yeah. Okay. But then all of a sudden, he received a message from special counsel. And again, this is secondhand through Derek that they would move forward with one proposal. It's like Lord of the Rings, one proposal to kill them all.
Agreement on Inclusion
But they had to include the GWGD. And I said to him, okay, well, then why did you decide to move forward if you didn't want to include the GWG? He said, well, they didn't move forward. And I'm paraphrasing him, so please read the article. But he said, well, if. And also Ernest has provided a transcript to delegate this program, that you could hear exactly what he said, and not my bird brained remembrance of it, but. And Danny, podcast, podcast eyes. It also excellent. I don't think it's a word, but okay. But it's a word he likes, so it is now.
The Dilemma of Compromise
Yeah. So Derek basically said, well, if I didn't accept the GWG, then the whole thing wouldn't go through, and for the better good, I decided to put the GWG in it. Now, that's. Now, I didn't say anything during delegate this, really. But, you know, upon reflection, that's where I would have said no. That's where I would have said, like, if. And again, I know I'm coming out, you know, for GWG, and I work for GWG. Really, when I say work, I mean, you know, not enough to put food on the table, but they do sponsor me for delegate this, et cetera. So maybe I'm biased here, but if you think that a working group should not be dissolved, don't include it in the proposal to dissolve all the working groups.
Concerns About Cash Flow and Proposals
And I think at that point, I probably would have said, no, I'm all for compromise. Right. Delegate, this is all about compromise. But I think if there's such a drastic change and includes something, really the firing of three people plus their staff, et cetera, if it includes that, and you don't think that they should be removed from their positions, I personally would have said, no, I'm not going to put it out. So I guess that's where Derek and I differ here.
Understanding the Proposal Changes
In his article later on, there's a sentence, a paragraph, I think, that explains why he left it, why he assented the change and kept it going. It starts with, but then I found out the GWG had taken upon themselves to separate the three person facilitators team from their GWG structure, thus setting them adrift in their own cluster. Facilitators is the core team that handles the forum, as well as servicing one of the proposals which form the heart of the Dow community ops, as explained on our government docs and so I made the change.
The Facilitator's Repercussion
Well, jokes on him, because then the facilitators, who I'm friends with, by the way, I like the facilitators, I believe, banned him from the, from the forum. So. Ha ha. You know, I mean, look, and by the way, I'm not saying the facilitators banned him for any reason that they shouldn't have. Again, like I said, I'm friends with the facilitators. But it is pretty funny, though, if you think about it.
The Complexity of the Situation
Yeah. There's so many variables at play, and it's fascinating to see how all this is unfolding, and in some cases, I'm just, I'm sad to see how it is unfolding. So it's going. It's that vote, right. And it's closing when it closes Wednesday. At 06:00 p.m. I think it's, look, we have seen things turn around before, but I don't think that this is going to turn around.
Importance of Information in Voting
I mean, and that's what I was talking about with Ernest. You know, earnest is pure of heart, and, you know, he believes that if everybody gets the information that, like, what he and I both agree on is that we hope everybody looks at the information without any kind of bullying or pressure from anybody else. Just. Just look at all the information and then make up your mind. If you are okay with what Derek's saying, if you're okay with the new information, then you should definitely vote for it.
The Essence of Proposals
If you are okay with, like, look, also, a proposal does not have to be perfect. Right? You can, you can agree that there are problems with this proposal, and you can still vote for it because you think that it's more important to shut down the working groups because you think that they're, you know, they're wasteful. But I would hope that one of the. And again, one of the reasons why I delegate to bulls on the block is because bulls on the block is probably the most informed delegation in the dow.
Encouragement to Be Informed
I'm also striving for the NBA delegation to be as informed. But if you're informed and you vote against it, God bless you. If you're informed and you vote for it, God bless you. I think what Ernest and I both agree with is that everybody should be informed. What we disagree with is that I don't think the new information is going to change the outcome of the vote.
Predicting Voting Outcomes
When I vote for. I'm sorry. When I vote against the proposal in the NBA delegation, it's probably just going to be me in earnest. And I am doing it. I don't love the proposal, but I was probably going to sit this one out, to be honest, because, you know, I don't know, sometimes you like, I don't have a good reason for doing it, you know, but I'm not going to let earnest hang out there with his one sad vote.
Moving Forward Together
I will join him in voting against it. But I think that we're going to be the only two voting against it. And I don't think it's going to make a difference in the end result. But everybody in the room, you should educate yourself on the actual contents of the AIP. And to that point, Aaron, I just want to go over my few points that are reasons why I am going to be voting against it.
Debrief on Concerns
Then we'll go over to Big Bull, who's joined the stage for me, number one is the idea of an orderly wind down isn't well articulated in the proposal. Who's leading it, who's managing it? How are we going to make sure that there's an appropriate transition? How are we going to make sure that there are rfps ready to go so that we're not losing some of the value that's being delivered by the GWG, so we're not skipping a beat for the Dow? I also, as I mentioned before, feel like the approach was a bit of throwing a baby out with the bathwater, meaning, you know, looking at change management, you try to bring good people in who are part of the existing structure, who you think can help with the new structure and help shape that.
Strategic Concerns
I don't feel like that coalition building was done here is a big piece for me, and then it's the strategy piece. So RFP as a structure, how do you string those together? How do you make sure that it has a strategic delivery? So if you're trying to deliver RFP by RFP, who is looking at it strategically to make sure that all these pieces fit together nicely and paint a nice picture two, three years down the road? And so I have concerns about the RFP approach lacking the ability to deliver strategically rather than tactically.
Testing RFP Processes
RFP, RFP by RFP. And then my last point is similar to Aaron, what you said is nothing stopping the governance groups from making the improvements now. There's also nothing stopping us from testing out the RFP process now while the governance groups are still active and in place. And then at the end of the term saying, hey, look, this RFP thing is working out really well. Why don't we move to that as the primary way for us to manage these things.
Acknowledging Big Bull's Input
So those are my points to it, but I'd like to hear from big Bull and then we'll go over to Lancer, who's got his hand raised. Yeah, I mean, I think the challenge, one of the key challenges for me is about how it is misleading. It's misleading in multiple ways. It's misleading in the fact that it's AIP one states that you have to have clear details and you have to be clear about the budget. And even in the space yesterday, Derek was saying.
Concerns About Clarity and Process
Was unclear, or was saying, like, stewards that never had a budget are going to be given funds in arrears, but some of those stewards never had a budget approved. So you're basically saying there's going to be additional costs. Right. Wasn't stated in the AIP. And I also, you know, reached out in the forum about that. I reached out to special counsel, I sent it to Webslinger, I put it on the forum, I asked questions in it, even though it was quite rushed to say IP, you know, at least as soon as it went up with a number, I asked all these questions and not only were they nothing answered, they were actually blocked.
Blocking Concerns
And I was told asking reasonable questions about AIP 466 is off topic. So that was one of my concerns. And then when I put a post about how AIP 239 has issues, I already talked about that in the implementation updates. And then I put up another post about, in general, about AIP 239 enhancements, it was not allowed to be posted. And then the reason they gave me was it was flagged, but it can't be flagged if it was never posted to be flagged.
Community Engagement Issues
So my concern is there is they're not allowing a conversation within the official channels on this topic, or they are more, or they are, let's say, selecting what the conversation is on the official channels. Right. And I think that's a concern also, given that AIP 239 says the governance working group is responsible for changing these processes. They are making these decisions without us even already.
Pushing for Institutional Updates
If you see, I'm the one who's been pushing a lot of implementation updates, but one of the things that you've just seen this week is the facilitators made a post saying from now on, all aips will get their funds in tranches. You'll have to say how you get it. I have no issue with changing of a process, but currently there's only two ways you're allowed to change the process.
Questions on Governance
One is AIP 239 says governance working group can give a suggested process. And then two, it needs to go to an AIP vote. So even before AIP 466 has passed, they've basically unilaterally made a change in process, which I think is not within the current terms of the DAO. Right. So I think there's a lot of issues of how it's been dealt with.
Experiences with Accountability
You know, I was even had my account frozen for a day. They couldn't ban me because I hadn't done any, broken any rules. I continually asked them, please tell me what content is not acceptable in my posts and I will adjust accordingly. They have not confirmed with me on any post what I've said that's inappropriate before.
Past Instances of Rule Enforcement
I know from, I'm not going to mention which AIP, but other aips. I know that authors before, if they wrote down, for example, Aaron, you know, the comedy club, whatever, it was just a simple introduction. They said, can you give us more information? Can you say that you are also doing delegate this? Just simple example, right?
Demands for Transparency
So there's other cases where stewards put up aips and they're like, you need to put up your, in the team, specify that you're currently a steward and make your affiliation clear. Right? So to make sure that there's identification of any potential conflicts of interest, I asked Captain Trippie if I actually suggested he should have his profile, which is shared as potential advisors of the banana bill.
Potential Issues with AIP Disclosure
And he shares that he is an advisor to the banana bill on his x profile. I asked if that could be added to into the AIP description, which only shows that he's a former special counsel. And I was told that comes under hate speech or breaking rules. So that was also not allowed to be added.
Recommendations for Voter Awareness
So what I'm saying is these things should have been added so that voters can make an informed decision. And I believe they're very well aware that most of voters, there's five or 6000 people in the forum, about five or 600 regular participants. There's probably a couple hundred that attend these spaces over various ape coms. This space, the mocker space, delegate this, a few hundred people probably.
Voter Mindset and Information Processing
And there are many more that are voting who are getting their information or getting potentially incomplete or I not the full story, right? And so they're reading the snapshot only. And the snapshot says, get rid of non essential. And then it says, we're saving 3 million. And number one, they haven't defined non essential. Number two, Derek even himself said, I didn't want it to be called nonessential.
Discrepancies in Cost Saving Claims
I wanted to change the title. And he claims that's what he said, I'm just quoting him that they didn't allow him to change the title. Right. Then when it came to the cost, you have to be consistent. Either you say we're not saving any costs because no new budgets have been approved and we have no cost to it, that's fair.
Accountability for Budgeting
Or if you say we're saving 3 million or we're going to nothing, have these potential 3 million, then you need to identify what those potential costs will be. The RFP for Web slinger, for example, is 75,000 us a month. Right. So what's that? 900,000 a year for Webslinger? Right. And don't forget that's purely for their administrative costs.
Unpacking Overall Costs
It's not including, for example, like GWG spending on small grants. There's funding for delegations like this. They get delegation rewards. There's also staked ape that is delegated to delegation. So there's a lot of things going on which is not just purely the spending right now.
Concerns About Facilitator Contracts
Just a simple example. The facilitators, if they're no longer under contract to GWG, they'll be contracting directly to the foundation. So if they were 24,000 us a month, unless they've decided, all three facilitators, to do this pro bono for free. That means if that cost is no longer in GWG, that 24,000 a month is directly going to the foundation.
Misleading Financial Explanations
So to say that there is no costs to do this and then there's to say there's all the savings is frankly misleading. So that's my main concern. You know, is there problems with it? Yes. Should there better ways to get rid of non functioning stewards and non functioning special counsel? I know this is about the stewards.
Advocating for Better Processes
Yes. I mean, one person put up an AIP last year for special counsel and they said that any new member would have to be at least level two in the forum for at least six months. Right. So there are ways that, you know, adjustments could be made. Like, oh, you need to be in the forum for x amount of time. You need to have, you know, there could be various things, you know, you.
Proposing New Solutions
I thought I. You could have a three effectively. I talked about this, a lower base compensation of USD and have a cliff, you know, so you effectively have three months. And if they're not effective, that person won't pass like a probation. Right. You know, you can have it that the other stewards can vote out if a majority, like eight of eleven, or let's say five of six can vote off a steward if they're nothing working out.
Improving Change Management
So there's many ways that we could improve it. And I 100% agree with what Ant said is that we can take it. Change management is about transition. So shock transition is normally not the best method. Should we perhaps have mark ons or let's say the communications function be done internally? Let's have that as an option and people can just maybe that can go in and we can start putting pieces. Is web three development, which has never got funded. If you look at some of the scope, it's heavily overlapping with banana bill and eight chain. So should all of those things be there? So I think that's also very important. And then there was one last thing, was this discussion, I don't know if Aaron mentioned, but I. They asked the budget to be taken off because that would have required. Not only would it have shown it's not cost saving, it would have changed the quorum of what needs to be done.
Budget Considerations and Decision Impact
Like if they're back paying for stewards, plus they're paying the facilitators, that's already past the 250,000 minimum for the 70% to pass. So these are kind of some various points I have. You know, whether I'm continuing in this or not is not the point. It's about, for me, it's about the capability building of the DAO and having the competency of people in the DAO to be able to transfer, to build the capability of the DAO. Right. And ideally, you know, the DAO should be stronger after a steward's completed their term. And it's not like when they leave just all of their. It's like everything they did just goes with them. Right? That's how you build strong, functional organizations.
Secretary Role and Budget Issues
Big boy. I'm staring at a thumbnail where it says governance working group stewards discourse facilitators. Dell secretary, when you were talking about how they were blocking you were talking about the facilitators. I think you said, don't they answer to you and the other students? Yeah. So what happened, number one is secretary roll was ending the budget for. That was October 1. Right. So when the secretary resigned, he actually had been told that because some of the other stewards weren't working so closely, or he was unable to. There were certain issues were discussing, reducing his compensation. So he already had known his compensation was being reduced when he resigned. With the contract left, with days left. Right. So that's the secretary issue. Right.
Facilitators and Contractual Challenges
Some clarity there. Facilitators, they should be working for the GWG before, however, you know, we had some challenges. They refused to sign contracts or invoice correctly. So when we had this challenge, we're like, either they need to invoice us correctly because we are an AIP recipient. Right. They are nothing working directly for the foundation. And if they don't, then we cannot keep them with. We cannot have them inside the GWG. So, personally, there were some different approaches to that. I don't want to go into the internals, but just to say, one approach was to shut down the initiative and let it be centralized under the foundation. Another approach was to say, we're keeping the initiative and we're going to fire or replace all the.
Decisions Around Facilitators and Role Clarity
All the facilitators. Right. And moderators. So anyway, the end result was that wasn't. That wasn't chosen. And the choice that was chosen was to let them go under the foundation. Right. So that. Now I also ask clarification whether they will be an RFP for those facilitators or whether there'll be an AIP for the facilitators, or whether they're just going to be hired in the. I mean, what I mean is. Sorry. I asked whether there'll be an RFP, which is done via a Dao vote, whether it be an RFP purely by the foundation making the choice themselves, or whether it would be an AIP to pick the people who do the facilitation.
Delegation and Governance Structures
Right. I never got answer on which one of those three they'll choose, but probably, you know, it's most likely it's just going to be directly from the foundation. Like, if you look at this AIp, the fundamental point of it is it's saying that, you know, these RFP processes in the future will be done directly by the directors of the. It's the foundation. And by the way, the special counsel, they're an advisory board, so they're not the ones in that case, if they're an advisory board, they're not the ones who they can advise who they want to pick for an RFP. But fundamentally, it's the director of the foundation. The way this AIP 466 is written are the ones who would be choosing big bull.
Stewardship and Decision-Making
So how was the decision diverted from you all as stewards deciding the fate of the facilitators to, not you and the special counsel, I assume, instead decided. No, there was. We have three stewards, right? Yeah. And there was a vote between the three stewards on whether we should have keep them in the initiative. In an initiative or not. Right. Because the way it's written is any initiative, if two or three of the stewards agree, that initiative can be sunset. Right. Okay. And you voted. Yeah. And I can't tell you the internal vote, but I can say the vote happened and then it was decided a month ago.
Negotiating Facilitator Dynamics
They were. Moved towards there. And we did ask. You moved them toward the special counsel. Well, I can't say everything here, but I can just say that were trying to find a way for this. To happen and were asking for. Feedback from the advisory board for this. Or maybe I'm confused. You can't say what the results of the vote were? Yeah, I can't say what's the internal stuff in the Dow. Right. But I can say the. Well, you know what the result of the vote is. They were put out. Right.
Post-Vote Dynamics of Facilitators
So the result is known. Right. Like how the people voted. I'm not saying how people voted internally. That's fine. I don't need to know that part. So they were put out, but they're still blocking posts. Because if the choice had been to let them go and then we took it on or hired people, then they wouldn't be able to. But because they are now outside of the GWG, they are more able to block posts. They're no longer being paid by the GWG. Right. How are they still facilitators if they were put out of.
Understanding DAO Governance
Well, that means that the Dow itself has decided to take them on. Right. Directly. Because they have a DaO being a special counsel. Yeah. This is the part that confuses me, and I'm sure it's a lot of people, because it's like, we say things like they. And then, yeah, I want to know who they are. Yeah. We talk about the DAO. I hear the foundation, I hear web slingers. It's like who, like, it feels like it's like the new world order.
Special Counsel's Role Clarification
Like there's the Illuminati running the Dow. Officially, the special counsel is an advisory board. So officially, they can only advise that the facilitators should be contracted directly to. The DAO, meaning they don't have authoritative decision making power. I mean, in terms I'm asking. That was a question. Yeah. Before there was an AI. I forgot the number. It was, I'm not on my computer right now, but when there was an AIP that passed which changed the status of special counsel from the board to a advisory board.
Legitimacy of Special Counsel's Powers
So their status before was the board. When they were the board, effectively, in this kind of situation, the special counsel's decision would have been as a board would have decided these matters. Right. As an advisory board, they probably are giving, and I don't have visibility of that. They're probably giving a vote or a decision of what they advise on. But fundamentally, then, it's the directors of the foundation who are making that final decision because they're no longer.
Transparency in Governance
Well, that information is not disclosed. So arbitrum. Yeah, arbitrum and ens both disclose their memorandum and articles openly. The same law firm that did this is all public, by the way. Oh, you're talking about the legal corporate positions. Okay, I know what you're talking about now. Yeah. Sandbox has the same structure where they have a corporate entity with a governing board, like, you know, president and secretary and all that. Well, no, yeah, they. Exactly.
Corporate Structure and Governance
They will have. You know, I mean, I forget how came and what it works, but things like a supervisor or a secretary and then directors. Right, but I forget the exact structure. And there are some variables for Cayman, but for this one, I know every Cayman foundation has to have directors. That's the requirement. Or at least one director. So the one or more than one directors of any Cayman foundation are the ones who fundamentally can make the decision.
Comparative Analysis of Governance Models
It's the same for Ens and it's the same for arbitrum. Right, but Arbitrum and Ens have actually shared their memorandum and articles and their charters. Right. They're public. You can go to the dot San rock. Yeah, yeah. And you can download them, and you can see the legal document, for example, from. That's been submitted to the government in Cayman. And you can see, for example, the. You know, Walkers is the law firm that did this for Ens.
Legal Documentation and Compliance
It's the same law firm that did it for arbitrum. And according to a post by what's his name, badteeth, back in 2022, I think he said that Walker's law firm did the same registration process. Obviously, the same law firm doing the process doesn't mean the articles are the same. Right. They'd probably be slightly different, but I. They're specialized in registering Cayman foundations that are used in web three daos.
Diverse Governance Perspectives
Right. So it sounds like. I know if we're going, I'm quite happy. No, no, you're not going off on the tangent. That's what I need to figure out. The facilitators, you all decided internally we're going to be either exiled or taken out. But they weren't taken out because they were absorbed by the foundation. Corporate positions that run the foundation from a legal standpoint. And those are parties undone. Yeah, I mean, the director of a foundation can be the.
Understanding the Role of Directors
Could be someone who's appointed. It could be someone who is a launch partner. It could be a large one of the large holders. It could be a third party. You know, it could be. You know, there's. There's different. Different kind of directors, right? Could be a nominee director. There's different kind of directors. Right. So I. But the point is, whoever, from a legal point of view, it's. They are the ones who will be doing so.
Contractual Signing Powers
And then for certain activities, things will be signed by. I mean, I think if you are. A grant recipient, right. You have. Your contract is, you know, is signed by the other party. Right. I forget what it says on the contract, but Aaron would remember, right. It's. I can't remember if Web Slinger is the one signing it or it's just. It's a stamped foundation.
Funding and Legal Signatories
The AIP, when you got AIP funding, the. Your party b. But party a gets signed either by Web slinger or it's signed by the foundation. Right. It's not signed by special counsel. I don't remember off the top of my head. Yeah. But anyway, either. But either way, legally, could be done. The directors could say, for contracts, Webslinger is empowered to sign this stuff.
Operational Framework and Decisions
Then, of course, there's Webslinger, which is the administrative group, and there was an RFP, which is not in the AIP section, by the way. I put a link to it, I think, in the. I'll have to send it out a bit later. But basically, about a year and a half ago, there was a one year contract signed with Webslinger. Right. There was an RFP process that went out and then web Slinger was chosen that replaced Cartan, as there was cartan.
Responsibility and Performance
Then there was this internal group, and then it went to Webslinger to do a whole bunch of stuff from treasury management legal contracts. But they're also doing, interestingly, they're also doing a lot of operational things. So, for example, the website is out of date and it still says board of directors. Those kind of changes, they're meant to update within 48 hours of being requested by a working group, because that's what it says in the RFP terms.
Compliance with RFP Terms
And they said they're going to comply to all the RFP terms. So I'm not going to go into web slinger. Right. But at my point, I'd rather ask. The part about you all being the stewards. Were you? My point is, I'm not trying to get into our web slinger in a bad way. I'm just saying that making something an RFP versus a working group doesn't guarantee that things are always delivered exactly as it says within the scope either. That's all.
Election and Appointment of Stewards and Facilitators
Are you, as stewards, were you voted in yourselves by the community, or were you appointed by someone higher? No. No. So the stewards and the special counsel were all elected via Darwin vote. Right. There's a process that happens every six months and there's a twelve month term, but when we come in, stewards are elected in a different way to special counsel because. Special counsel. Yep. Track. And when you're elected, were the facilitators also voted in or were they appointed? They were. I'm trying to remember now. I believe one of them was grandfathered in from an early initiative. This is like before my time. It's like 18 months ago. And I believe two others were purely hired, or I think they may have been picked by ape assembly or something back in the day, and I don't quote me on that, but they were not picked by a DAO wide vote.
Roles and Responsibilities of Elected Members
So the elected roles are the stewards of and the special counsel. And the stewards are elected, but they do not have a guaranteed compensation. Whereas the special counsel, as soon as they're elected, their contractors to the foundation. So the special counsel is working. So the special counsel are contractors to the foundation and they're also, if you read the web Slinger scope of works, part of Web Slinger's job is to have weekly meetings with special counsel. Right. So you know, they're dealing with those things. So they're, you know, for example, like assessing which AIP is it league, is it a risk for foundation? Can it go to vote? None of that. As a governance working group, we have zero. It was special counsel and facilitators who would prepare the information for them.
Governance Group Interaction and Responsibilities
So even if they were under TWG, they were doing they were within our group, but they were doing work or having meetings with special counsel. Like, we are not part of the discussions about what goes to vote and when. Yeah, but you. And so you don't have the power to remove facilitators. Who has that power? Well, I would say before there was a decision to like sunset. No, I meant mechanically. Sorry. Who has a button to click on discourse to remove their permissions? Oh, well, two parts. If they are still sitting as an initiative within the governance working group, then from an AIP point of view, we have the ability to request. We would have had the ability to request Webslinger to remove. If we said this facilitator is no longer working in GWG, we would have been able to request Web Slinger to effectively say that person has been let go or they're no longer part of the initiative.
Changes in Governance and Limitations
Once the initiative is sunset, then we have zero. We have the same relationship to them as you. You know, Web Slinger is the button pusher. So ultimately, whether, no matter where it's coming from, web Slinger is the one who would, who administer that removal? Well, that person's contracted by the foundation. Yeah. Well, for example, Web Slinger, I think it does states, and I haven't got the scope of works in front of me, it does have a section about discourse management and making sure that within like two days, you update, make updates to the discourse. I mean, you know, the, for which is effectively the platformer forum. So the enterprise, they call it enterprise discourse management. Right. That is under Webslinger from a high level point of view.
Role of Facilitators in Communication
But when it comes to day management on the forum, you can see the facilitators are openly posting the updates on there. Anyone who's put an AIP up knows that communication is with the three facilitators. Anyone who's been given a warning will see that most of their warnings come from one of the facilitators, although I do believe the administration account, because there is an account called admin and then there's the admin accounts of each different facilitator. Right, right. And is the, has you made a request to Webslinger to remove the permissions of the facilitators? Well, I'm no longer, the facilitators are no longer under the GWT, so I cannot request that. Right. Hey, if.
Discussion on Facilitators and Transparency
Let's do this. I want to pause for a minute. Aaron's had his hand raised. Sorry. I don't want to go too deep in the woods on this, so please moderate. So let's, before we do that, I want to just change the subject slightly. Just point everybody to the nest. Nifty island is one of the big topics that we usually have on the program. So I just want to point out that there is a game night that Cuban is hosting, tonight at 07:00 p.m. eastern. It's a lot of fun. you know, you get to cuban livestreams and if you haven't seen Nifty island, you get to check Nifty island out. If you want to participate, you can participate. so highly recommend, if you're available, 07:00 p.m. eastern tonight.
Community Engagement and Acknowledgements
it's a. It's a. It's a lot of fun. check out Cuban. He does a real nice job with his game nights and live streaming partners with Nifty island and bhas over at Nifty island. supports the. Supports the partnership, so a lot of good fun there. And then also, just a heads up, I do want to wrap this up, a bit of an abbreviated session, so we're going to go to Aaron, and then we'll try to get some closing remarks done over the next ten minutes. So appreciate everybody paying attention to that timeline. Aaron, over to you. Yeah, I do want to stick up for the facilitators a little bit because they're being. I think. I won't say they're being painted in a negative light. It is. It is good to find out what the mechanics of the Dao are. However, I will say that I've worked with the facilitators one one.
Reflections on Facilitators and the Governance Process
I've worked with Chris, and he was amazing. Right? Like, helped me every step of the way. Not only that, but he came into the APU training and helped us there. And they are very by the book when it comes to what they do now. You know, Chris lost and twelve gauge are facilitators. I've worked with Chris. Okay. You know, they don't have. They don't have any say in anything. Once an AIP goes to admin review, just to clarify, right? Like, and I've been told this by Chris during the process because I bothered him a thousand times. Like, hey, when are we going to vote? He's like, well, once it goes into admin review, the only thing that he gets is a list of questions, request for clarifications from the special counsel to the AIP author.
Challenges in Transparency and Governance
And then I think he's told maybe a couple of hours before we're told when, our AIP is going to go up for vote, there's. The facilitators don't have any special powers in that regard. The thing that, the thing that bothers me about all of this is the lack of transparency, right? Like, yes, exactly. We are assuming that. That it's. We are assuming we. Big Bull's been given information. Derek's been given information about, you know, possibly why they were removed and who did it and what. But I don't. I don't think we have 100% of the information here. I would like to have 100% of the information. Is it possible for people to just attack a post or a poster on the forum and then the facilitators don't have a choice.
Concerns Over Delegate Authority and Transparency
You know, they have to follow certain rules. Are the facilitators unilaterally and. Hang on, I'm going to finish your big bull. I'm sorry, are the facilitators unilaterally making decisions on their own? But there's another thing here that I wonder. You were talking big bull and big bull, I love you, but you said something that just kind off the cuff. Well, I can't talk about how people voted. My question is, why would that break the NDA of some kind? This is the exact thing I'm talking about. Wherever, where there should be more transparency. Why can't we know how stewards vote? Why can't we know how the special counsel votes? And if the answer is, well, it might affect the vote in some way. I mean, to me, that's not a good enough answer.
Discussion on Transparency and Governance Reforms
And if it's affecting it regardless. Right. Well, if it is in some sort of NDA that Stewart votes can't be made public, then I would challenge at NDA. And I just don't, these are the things that bother me in the dow. It bothers me with special counsel where we can't know what happens in admin review and things like, well, I can't talk about the votes. These should be public. I don't think that the stewardship should be dissolved at this point. I think they should be reformed. But I think one of the reforms that should be made is that everything should be transparent and public vote should be transparent and public transcripts should be transparent and public.
Recommendations for Increased Transparency
And if they, if there is any information in there that would break an NDA or a legal requirement with the Dow, then that is where you can take a week to have a secretary or legal go through it and redact some of the transcripts that are just put out by an AI bot that the earnest and I use all the time or any other AI bot. And so my question is, why can't the votes be known? Okay. I think we, I don't think it, I think that could be adjusted. Right. I mean, there is no specific rule, but I'm also cautious to not like, say it unless I have the other stewards agreement.
Perspective on Decision-Making Processes
Right. That's what it is. Yeah. Okay. It's the risk aversion. Yeah. And so, no, but what I'm saying is there is a way to do this. For example, you know, we could have a snapshot, for example, which is, you know, like GWG snapshot. Right. And we you know, when we have our, you know, I'm not saying we share everything, but let's say we do important things like resolutions. Like we say, oh, we are going to, you know, change the budget on this by 10% because we had a currency loss. Okay. Just something like that.
Recommended Practices for Governance Improvements
Right. So that type of, you know, significant change we would vote on. And if we vote on that, then those votes, I don't see why those kind of votes couldn't be public. I don't think those things are a competitive advantage. It's not like saying like special counsel knows that there's going to be like, you know, some, you know, activision is suddenly going to build a mega game on a chain. It's not something with a, what's the word? Business. Help me here, Aaron, with English. But a business, there's a benefit to the surprise or secrecy for things that don't have that.
Clarifying Governance Changes and Seeking Transparency
I think, why not have those kind of things voted on? I think we could, but this is, again, these are improvements that have to go out. Right. And so change management is sort of saying, okay, well, what things do we need to improve and what things should be centralized. Again, I'm not against more centralization. I'm just against the way that this was pushed through with a somewhat misleading narrative. And especially now that the main authorization has said they're not, they don't agree to it. And the second author basically hasn't answered any questions.
Obstacles to Communication and Clarity
And every time I've asked questions, I have had the facilitators block it. So they may be great with you, Aaron, but they have openly been blocking these things. And it is not just a bot because it does state that, you know, it's been flagged and they have chosen to, you know, act on those flags. Right. And one of them was cite as hate speech. Right. You said earlier, which. Yeah. For asking.
Context of Facilitators' Actions and Procedures
Well, it's a topic of hate is one of the topics. But it's, I can't remember, it's a sentence of three or four things included. But my point being, asking someone to say when you're convenient to answer reasonable questions definitely is not breaking any rules. Right. So, and then I've asked them because there is a process that says if you feel that it's been flagged incorrectly or if you feel that it's been a post has been moved incorrectly, if you feel you've been suspended incorrectly, you can reach out to the moderators and it says you should argue your case.
Concerns Regarding Governance Processes
It's interesting. It says you should argue your case as to why you should not have been suspended or the post taken down versus, which I think is actually the wrong logic because it's basically a logic of guilty to prove yourself innocent. It should be a logic of please let me know exactly which rule I've broken. And a, if I have broken a rule, you can have your penance for it. And if you haven't broken a rule and they can't prove you've broken a rule, then they cannot just, they cannot arbitrarily just put something down.
Summary of Discussions and Closing Notes
All right. All right. So I have Anthony, I summarize my thing in probably less than a minute. So Big Bull said his posts were blocked by they when he was trying to continue the conversation of 466 and add clarity to Derek's posts. Derek's accounts was banned by they. And the short and quick Q and a session I did with Big Bull just now, they seem to be the discord facilitators and perhaps a foundation which we don't know. And so they certainly have power. And it's unclear how or why they're acting in this manner and is on a vote that is about to remove all the governor's working groups or, I'm sorry, all the working groups, which it looks like it's going to pass in a few days if something doesn't get reversed.
Encouragement for Continued Inquiry
So that is strange. And I think you should keep asking questions. And that's going to be, that's kind of my closing remarks here. LANZER right. Is there's, they still, regardless of this vote, regardless of 466, a lot of us are spending a lot of time and energy contributing to a dow that we don't fully understand. There's, you know, the days and who are we contributing to and who has control over the things that we're contributing to. I know personally, I want to understand this a hell of a lot better.
Reflection on DAO Dynamics and Motivation
You know, I'm actually grateful for 466 because it has shone a light on quite a bit. That is, I don't want to use the word disturbing, but it's unsettling. At least it flies in the face of what you think a decentralized, autonomous organization should look and feel like, at least for me personally. And so asking the questions and continuing this conversation, I think, is an important one, regardless of the outcome of this vote on Wednesday, I know personally this show is going to continue to drill down on that.
Looking Ahead in DAOs
I want to make sure that we all know who we're contributing to at the top of the show. What I had said is I believe that despite having opposing viewpoints on how to go about some of this change, I think there are good people on both sides. I do think that Derek's got his heart in the right place. I disagree with the approach. I would take a different approach that had more of a change management discipline. But I also feel, well, I'm hopeful that we don't have it. But as I hear about these days, I hope there's not negative forces behind the scenes that are pitting good people against each other.
Preventing Centralization and Loss of Efforts
And then ultimately it results in another web three disaster where the DAO gets centralized or dissolved, and a lot of our efforts go to waste. And so that is something I'm interested in uncovering quite a bit. But I want to thank everybody for joining bulls on the block weekly. We're here every Saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. We have some fun some weeks and other weeks we've got some serious conversations. This week certainly was one of those serious conversations weeks. As I mentioned before, there's more fun.
Invitation to Upcoming Events
Tonight at 07:00 p.m. eastern, Nifty Island, Cuban will be live streaming game night. So if you want to disconnect a little bit and get to some of the fun aspects of web three, Nifty island is a good place to do that.
