 So, welcome everyone for the first call of 2024. What is the mission about this working group? This funding working group is a forum for cross-project dialogue. We want to generate ideas and collaborate. We have also a free marketing concept to share with everyone. What could we do together to capture 2% of the crypto market cap for the advancement of society through science? I will explain you briefly now where this 2% for these slow income comes from. Basically, if you look at the average expenditure of GDP internationally, it is 2% of GDP that is put into scientific research by nation states. There has been a presentation about a year ago by Juan Benet who said that we are actually on the path of reaching a market cap of the crypto space that would allow, if we put just a tiny fraction of this value into funding of scientific research, we could reach the level of nation states. Actually, if we take this 2%, which is the average spending, you see that, and this depends on the sources where you do the math, but we basically could reach, by just doubling the current market cap of the crypto space, we could reach a funding that is matching the funding levels of the US for science. If you compare the different largest science funders worldwide, 2% means, basically, United States here is at the top with something like 120 billion US dollars, and then it's followed by China and the European Union, and then here's Germany as another as an individual, comparing it to the United States nation, it's quite less than that. So 120 billion US dollars spent for science though has to be spent also wisely, and we should understand how this can be done in an effective way, in a way that is also constructive and it is complementary and not redundant to what already is being spent worldwide. This is why this working group is for. We want to create new ideas, educate each other, and also share this narrative and bring it out there, because currently the crypto protocols are not having embedded anything that necessarily automatically allocates money to public goods. It is something that we need to also make an advertisement for. So what we want to have is we want to build credibility. We want to create a narrative to convince the blockchain space to create new ways of funding into science in a decentralized way. That means that we are not an organization here that this dictates how this works. Every individual organization, every individual protocol will have to find their own approach, but we can make recommendations. And so we don't want to stop at funding the status quo. This would be actually very ineffective if we are just funding money back into the existing institutions. We can now also fund our own infrastructure. So this is why the call is not only for funders, but it's specifically also for projects in the desize space that are building their own tooling. And we want that these are tools that will be used by decentralized science funders. There is a group, currently a telegram group that you can join with this QR code here, and the link has been widely shared. This is the place where coordination will happen, where we will openly discuss agendas and we do research on different subgroups that have been formed in the last call and they are already established there in this channel. So you can you can join and check it out. For today, the agenda looks the following. And this is a proposal for this call. And we can then see how this works in the next ones. So we have two presentations. The first by Zürnke Barling, who is a co-founder with me. He founded actually blockchain for science and then I joined. And he will speak about funding in desize commons. This is the name of the working group that we have established. We just went ahead now because still there is little traction on the telegram group. So we are having the first slot, you know, we captured. We have also Joshua Bate, who will speak briefly then about how this could be governed. And then we allow some time in the end, which might be just 10 minutes to have an open discussions and individuals may give updates. And I also want to announce already the next agenda, which is a call for submissions and also for networking before, you know, we start this. So the next call in roughly a month will then focus on social platforms for desize funding and collaboration. And from here, I would suggest that we are having the general chat in the telegram group to come up with proposals for what should be the priorities for the upcoming month. And so what we have here as a proposed structure is one call. One part of the call focused on a rather longer presentation, where we can curate also several participants contributing. And then following that, we have some open re-discussion. With that, I stop my introduction. I invite you to write in the channel, in the chat. If there's any things that you want to share, I will also review the notes document that I shared there in the chat. And so that we can come back to this in the end of the call. And with this, I stop sharing and I invite Zunka to start his presentation. You're muted. So thank you very much for the introduction. And I'm going to like talk about the decentralized science comments. So the comments in terms of like, you all know, creative comments. So it's not the blockchain comments of all these I whatever. So, but we want to like create some guidelines and licensees accordingly to the creative comments licenses. So take comments in this like angle. So in this side, we are in a unique position. This side is young. So that blockchain and science is named together. It's like six to seven years old. And this was a weirdo idea in the beginning. And now it's a real thing, but it's still very young. OK, and what's different from other science revolutions in the past and me and Martin and the OGs here, we went through a few revolutions. Open science is popping up all the time. There was like science 2.0, web 2.0 for science and like all these ideas. And but what's what's the problem was in these, they never controlled money, right, the flow of money. So whatever the funders told scientists to do, they did, right? And if the NIH didn't tell them to publish in things different from established journals, scientists never did it, right? So but at the moment, the NIH told them to like not publish your results in closed journals, but open access journals. All the publishers and scientists moved from closed access journals to open access journals. So just by the funder telling the scientists and the research institutes some conditions, so for the ways they should like behave as scientists, they could really change the behavior of the scientists. And in this idea in a similar situation, because it's the first first science revolution, we have actually money that we can decide how we distribute the money and what the rules are that goes along with this money. So it's because I know you all mean the market caps of the blockchains and then we have researched those that actually distributed money. So in debt 2.0, there was never money involved, like research gate or social network for science. You still had the old science funders, right? So this is a very potential situation. But what this community should definitely not do and not end up would be to distribute money to, for example, DAOS to the very same old scientific conduct. This was this would not be getting the point of this. It would be an opportunity missed. What's good like having research DAOS, routing the money through like all institutes without telling them to change anything. And this would really miss out on a greater opportunity. And then the DCI community should be like careful not to be hijacked by old stakeholders. For example, publishers, they have these nice lobbying guys that come and have a beer with you. And it happened to us at one of the first blockchains for science conferences. They are very, very friendly people. They basically want to influence you. And like maybe there should be a role of journals in DCI that will come up with all these kinds of ideas. They always do it. They always have people that look into new fields and see what's going on there. And DCI should not be solely driven by non-scientists. It's good. I mean, in DCI there is like fields for people who can like build tokens, who can create DAOS, who can put up web pages, who can do marketing, who can build platforms, so to say, web suite platforms. But it should be like, there should be also be scientists involved here. So it should be because they know how science is being done, what the pain points of science are and so on. So speaking of the pain points, so what's wrong with science? Well, it's TLDI. I mean, all of you have some experiences, opinions and everything. But what's important here is to mention that there's not just one thing that is wrong in science. It's not if we fix peer review, all signs will be fine forever, right? It's not that we, if we have open data, we will like be all sharing data for good and there will be no data manipulations, yeah? It will like, all things in science are connected, yeah? So we have to like see what we can actually change. I mean, some examples of what's wrong in science, you're all near this photoshopping of like, where's some blood results or that you can't like rely on like mice results because it's basically very biased. I mean, the scientists look biased at the results, yeah? Or this like, just like faking some extra sheets by even Ivy League professors and it was in the news in the last month, in the last year, they basically added some data, did some P-value hacking and all this kind of, I mean, you all know this example. So it's an important thing here. These are just the things that we read about that end up as a newspaper article, but this is just a tip of the iceberg. Everybody of us who have spent some research knows that basically looking a little bit biased at data, to say the least in the least offending manner, is a common practice in science, right? So you can basically tell us your story about what your experience are with science. So we see a lot of potential to improve stuff here. So the DCI community should or will develop guidelines and best practices that will be followed by DCI science funders and scientists in the future to basically overcome this limitation of the current science practice. And if I may, as I mentioned, it is like, we basically took the logo and the idea from the creative carbon project. So sort of licensees for DCI, right? Or thing, how would you design science and research with the current technological means without legacy cultures and without legacy stakeholders? Just like from a blank table. There's no science culture, nothing, no peer review. How would you come up with a science culture, right? So I think this is a good way of thinking of it, yeah? And we have, I mean, there's a unique opportunity that we have with our hands here. So how would we do that? You don't know exactly, but we have a lot of ideas and I'm going to show you some of our ideas and visions. First of all, who should do this? Well, it should be a community process, right? And we are in the blockchain space, so it should be decentralized. But as you all know, even the most decentralized projects have to start somewhere centralized. So Martin and me, we basically put up a webpage where we add a call to action button and you can please join the process to create the decentralized science dumps. You can fill in the questionnaire, say how you want to contribute, and I want to say that it's just a very early phase. So you can like change your dedication and commitment later on if you have the process modified, okay? But just please join us. And how should we do this? We have some ideas. Obviously there should be a governance protocol earlier or later. And we know the thing that we really know is that the DCI comments will be bold, brave, and really revolutionary, yeah? To what end, right? To the betterment of humanity and to give a solid background for all future DCI funding. Maybe it's a 2% so that they can actually invest in science that is done in a good way and not in the old-fashioned, broken science way. And of course, to really break with your old science conduct. And how should we like create these guidelines? How should we be led guided? Well, I think the first most important thing is common sense, reasoning and first principle, right? We don't need to have scientific studies to show that closed access journal publications are bad, right? We don't need to have scientific studies to show that if you timestamp your Excel sheets every day, it's much harder to just like add some data at the end of a study, right? You don't need to be open with your data, with your Excel sheets at all times, but it's just harder if you want to fake the data, I mean. But still, we should like be open for meta science or science about science and creative comments, especially in the way of like how you distribute body among scientists, right? There are so many open questions and these high comments could be a great aggregation place, a knowledge hub of best practices and evidence-based scientific methods, right? So we could like give the future DSI funders some guidelines on how to like decide on good ways how to actually distribute research money, yeah? Obviously we're getting rid of unassisted stakeholders and limitations. For example, why have librarians, why have publishers, right? We can like solve the problem, copy anything in another way, right? How will the guidelines be enforced? Maybe through DSI funders? Imagine a DAO, Research DAO says, I want to like fund a DSI comments, public good, some IP reserve project, this is money. So all the applicants know that they have to like not have restricted patents or have open patents, for example, and so on. Or the community will like review other projects, decide or say this is like adhere to the guidelines or not. And these are some sort of focus areas that we want to like come up with guidelines, for example, for grants, for how DAO's research DAO should work on how you think about data sharing, publication, time stamping, and so on and so forth. How you invest in basic science, venture capital, how you deal with CSI, traditional design, centralized science, IP NFTs. Oh, okay, so I'll give you some examples of how these guidelines, just to have a rough idea, right? So how should like a guideline regarding publications, how could it look like? Well, obviously we will only support open access publications. And for DSI, you just publish one copy on a decentralized service like IPFS with a persistent paid for at least five years. For example, this could be a guideline, right? Publish more often, publish updates, move away from one monolithic publication, right? Have you, every month have an update sort of tweet that you publish on IPFS on the progress of your research project with all your timestamp data and so on, yeah? For example, this could be, there should be a high reuse of texts and figures. And obviously it should all be CD by, right? And maybe we can move away from X as a scientific feed and just like think of texts as a medium to convey scientific ideas and restrict discussions about plagiarism, just to like to like copy of scientific ideas and not of copy of like figures or texts, right? This would be a nice thing. So we could like save a lot of efforts on like discussions about plagiarism, right? And well, how could we look like a guideline for grants? Imagine you would just like publish or just like write a one-page grant, yeah? You can like use links to like publish material facets. This would mean very little overhead, where you would need to have some signaling that you are able to like do this project, but it could be like your past project or some example work and you don't need to like wrap anything up in the 30 pages grant application that will be rejected in 90% of the cases, right? So unnecessary work, okay? And then another idea would be why don't we like include publications and reporting how you spend your money in one system, right? The publication could be a report or how you spend the grant money. So you don't have to like spend your time on like writing a report, a publication or basically the same content, right? I think it could all be on chain, timestamp, right? How could we, how could a guideline regarding the infrastructure look like? So for example, obviously to use not Bobchains but large public blockchains, yeah? Store on decentralized services, don't use servers like in web 2.0, use open source and so on. How should translational research look like? Develop standard, maybe we can like create something like save agreement on future equity that is used to like invest in early stage like startup companies. Maybe we can like do some example contracts that work in like several legislation on like how to invest in like early stage applicable research, maybe soon IP NFT or we can like come up with guidelines how IP NFT should give like 20% back to the funding agency as like a revenue stream to like fund more creature research, come up with certain, blah, okay. Well, there are a lot of ideas and I'm looking forward to have your ideas and your chairs. So how do we do like decide would like do decide in a design way is cool how we deal with scientists because there's no design institute yet, right? So basically we had like one idea would be to have like two different kinds of doing science the green design way and maybe the gold design way. So in green you still have can publish in all traditional science publications but you still publish on decentralized services. And so a scientist can like live in both worlds and slightly translate to decide or you just like do gold decide where you basically go full decide or another thing and we like this approach best at the moment is be it's like, you know when there's like creative comments they have like CC by non-commercial or some rights reserved, right? So we can be this could be like Lego building blocks of licensees to do like research in certain ways, right? So it's decentralized science project, public goods and the old thing that you can do that you need to do is like site the results there will be no commercialization, no IP with all the advantages and disadvantages, right? There could be a decentralized science project that adheres to centralized science principles. It's still allowed for scientists to publish into digital journals and some IP can be like for like commercialization. And so on we can like build basically building blocks for like, okay, you got the point. So I ask you to like join the decentralized comments on the webpage and we look especially for people who have like a bridge knowledge who know web three blockchain and know how to build platform, know how to do science have some law experiences or maybe experiences with governance, creating guidelines and so this will all be very valuable. So thank you very much for your attention and this is the end of my talk. I just need to the page up here. Okay. Thank you, Zürnke. There are some comments I see in the chat. I mean, Dany for Eric, if you want to just voice them maybe. Yeah. I would like to take that, yeah. Thank you. I'll start, yeah. I put a comment just in there that a lot of the structure of science is there for relatively good reasons. The lack of community control over possible science allows for people to move against community such that like someone studying something in an armpit somewhere nobody has ever heard of doing something that most people have no idea about the scientific process, cremated existence which is the purpose of the scientific process. So lots of pure stuff in that vein. I'm concerned about the morality of even decentralizing the manner which is conducted. Alternative, of course. Anything industrial or applied makes perfect sense. Okay. I will. Yeah, buddy. So, Zürnke, if you mentioned- Let Zürnke answer. Yeah. Zürnke. If you mentioned, you're worried that it becomes too far out and every crackpot can come up with a crazy idea and there's no tunneling, no selection process. No, no, no. Complete inverse of that. Crackpots with crazy ideas are good things. That's what science as it currently is allows for and that's what we want it to do. Decentralization, that takes away the crazy people. Because then there is less particular authorities but it's the group, the norm which governs for the creation. Ah, good for interesting take. And if I want to oppose your opinion, for example, decentralize science may probably have ill effects, like so to say legalizing or enabling astrology as a financed field of science. But it is like a economy, a usual economy. We don't want not to be riches, we want not to be poor. So science should be decentralized in my opinion. I don't know how to explain more details but it's analogous. Yeah, science is already decentralized or centralized, right? It's decentralized through different institutes, different working groups, different nations. So it's a kind of question of how do you find defined decentralization, right? And like taking, bringing decentralization together with like converging towards the mean. It's, yeah, maybe these are like two different things like the structural decentralization and, yeah. Yeah, I think maybe the risk is that this, yeah, if the concept of the comments, right? Or if you think of how currently, for example, like things like Gitcoin are structured, these are apparently mechanisms that are being tried out that are, yeah, that are kind of pushing a certain direction and actually taking the agency, it seems away from the individual crazy person but putting more the mainstream stuff into the focus that can be like shared easily on the internet and social media, right? This is what gains traction. And I think this is not actually what we want and we could rather see, I just shared this here, there's an article about from the Republic of Science by Michael Poulani who actually says that the scientific process is one that is governed by the scientists themselves. And it shouldn't be influenced by any collectivist or even nation state approach. And I think the hope would be more to make use of the power of the internet of having those different crackpots connect, you know, and do their research in a way that is more permissionless than having to go through all the hoops to join an institution and sit in that building that you need to get your title and your degree and your diploma to access. Yeah, the title is so Schwarz-Katzel-Ohrow said, yeah. So we have carried away with the term decentralization somewhat, right? Because it's like before it was like old blockchain for science and research. Now it's called D-Side, just like DeFi, right? So basically with decentralized science, we mean creating science with DAOS, with tokens, with IPFs, with IPFS, and we don't worry so much about the social structure decentralization as a completely institute. We should like add a slide on this, yeah. On the, yeah, look at Eric, he needs to leave soon and he has a comment, Eric, go for it. Yeah, thanks Martin. Sorry to derail the discussion, this was a great one, I do have to jump off in a second. First off, I wanna say I had not thought about the idea that licensing requirements may need to change to accommodate decentralized infrastructure and kind of norms in decentralized communities. So that's a really interesting point and I would love to hear more discussion around it at some point, probably needs careful and well thought out deliberation. And then, yeah, I guess the one question that I would love to see answered on the telegram as I'm gonna have to jump off is why blockchain? Why does it have to be blockchain? What things can blockchain do that no federated database can possibly do? What things can decentralization do that the current academic system, which is to a certain extent, decentralize on a more granular level kind of community by community can do. So my interesting artifact coming out of this group is we're still in the formation and vision stages. Why blockchain, why decentralization? But with that being said, I'm sorry, I can't wait for the responses, but I do it, John. Thanks, John. We'll share the recording later. So you answer this piece and then we'll switch to Joshua because he's- Yeah, yeah. I want to- You see, like, I completely agree with Eric. There's nothing that a centralized service is like, and let's add with like some sort of like wallet to sign transactions, yeah? So Eric missed on that, right? So if you have a centralized server with some wallets that you can sign some statement and state changes to the system, you don't need blockchain, right? And we complete it on a technical level, we agree with this, but the whole blockchain and Deci and like all this whole thing, these are new narratives, new values, no new cultures that are being created. And we can use this movement and attach the Deci comments guidelines on it and use this for us to basically change something in science, right? From a purely technological level, you wouldn't need Bitcoin if there would be a central entity or Ethereum, right? But still it's a big field, you have developers coming up with DeFi protocols, with new platforms, with NFTs, with sort of new ideas, right? So they are the same, they are changing DeFi, we can have finances, we can change science, right? Martin, I want to repeat what I told to stress my point. You say that the influence of the community is harmful. It really can be harmful. For example, it can introduce astrology as a financed science. I think, like, who disagree with me, you say that we should make people rich, we should make no poor rather than no rich. That astrology may become rich, should not much bother us, it should bother us, but not much. It's not our main purpose to prevent fake false science, but to support the remade vibe. Okay, great, yeah, great. Thank you for that. Very quick response to Eric, I'm sorry, I'm on the face mask, go for it. So you also front this up in your presentation, and I'll be very brief, but it's the fact that we have the power to control money with blockchain. Blockchains are not a thing, they're a peer-to-peer digital cash system. So the fact that we can make currency, which was tried with a federated system and tried with a centralized system before then, and control that currency is a very, very big thing, you cannot do that with anything except blockchain. Okay, great. It was hard to understand, but I think what you mentioned, what you said is that the National Science Fund, for example, they can't do these certain mechanisms and things that we want to do it, that we can do with blockchain, correct? We can print money, no federated or central system can print money. Yeah, that's it, exactly. That's a very simple premise, that's I think why the funding is like the number one thing we can go for, and that Duncan mentioned. And then I'll hand over though to Joshua, right? Just what Duncan said also, I think the funding, the ability of this current movement that can really decide how the money is allocated is unique and has never been there. The open science movement has been co-opted by publishers, you know? Yeah. And it took decades until finally governments took action and said, yeah, you have to have everything open access. This is like taxpayer funded research. There's been a lot of lobbying before by publishers to avoid this. And now we can basically hopefully fund individuals that are going with this new paradigm, you know? And are going really, and are being empowered on the internet. And this is why I think it's actually quite interesting to really go into the fringes, the fringe parts, the long tail, you know? Also with that said, and there's great comments I would like to invite Joshua now to share his screen and speak and then if there's some time in the end we can still have a discussion. Great, thank you. Before I show the talk about the Deci Funding Governance, I just want to say based on that, there's concepts of sort of like what is the optimal tokenomics, for example, or the optimal centralized entity in this decentralized ecosystem. I can't remember if I think your concern was what if we have the sort of the consensus of the masses leading those on the outside to not even get a space at the table. I think that these concerns about this sort of direction that the decentralized community will take science in is kind of unfounded because the whole point in the decentralized community is that any direction can be taken. The technology itself allows anybody to, like as John said, mint their own currency or create their own governance techniques, create their own versions of a Deci Commons standard. And this sort of like decentralized architecture that we're building is brand new, especially in Deci. And so there will be moments where you have your Gitcoin who basically will control the narrative of public goods funding for however many years. And maybe subsidiaries of Gitcoin, the Gitcoin friends will also do the same thing. And that's okay. Like they've done a service to the people that they've done a service to, but those who are left on the outside at some point will be picked up by other public goods funding protocols. This is the size of this space is tiny in comparison to what it can be and probably will be. And so when it grows, it's gonna be able to have many, many directions. It's gonna be a multipolar world. It's gonna be a plural world. The plurality thing is a big thing that a lot of the crypto crew sort of talk about all the time. And just another thing that that book move fast and break things, which was written about the way that Google and Facebook and Microsoft basically monopolized the tech industry because what they did is they saw this new technology and they just made some stuff. They made some stuff that people used and it maybe it broke some things along the way, but now they're the incumbents, they're the monopolists, right? There is that cut through attitude to tech and tech innovation is going to continue across the whole world, including in the decentralized space. And if truly decentralized participants like ourselves don't actually take the initiative to start creating these things, then those that have the power to do so much quicker than us will do and they will break things and they will continue the monopoly of these things. So I think that this inertia in the space, especially in Deci, it's really quite damaging. And I don't think that the concept of, oh, if we do a Deci Commons, it's gonna put, it's gonna stop all these other people on the outside from coming in. I think that would just be damaging to the movement in general, that we can make a Deci Commons two or a Deci Uncommons or whatever you want, right? The idea is that just like put something and put something out there so people can get behind it and we can actually start a decentralized movement. On that, I'm gonna show you a potential governance protocol for what you could consider the standards or the commons. So just briefly, let me just stop that. So let me just briefly, the commons document that Sunko is mentioning, there's an aspect of it that was the golden green standard of Deci and that's the thing I'm particularly interested in, which is sort of Deci standards. All industries across the world have a standards. It's important that we do too so that we can inspire confidence in those looking from the outside in, in particular in this group of funders, right? It's important that we have funders who know what could be considered a high-quality project and why they might be considered a high-quality project. And in order to do that, we have to have some kind of framework of some kind of guidelines. And the guidelines are, Sunko has a great version of them. The guidelines, Sunko, if you can share your guidelines at some point that would be great. These are just like very early ideas, right? So we are just starting the real serious attempt to have guidelines here, right? And I hope you'll sign up to the page, yeah? To the Deci commons page. It was just like an early idea. I'm going to share it, yeah? One second. Martin, do you want a moment to respond to Yanis' comment? Or is he... No, no, no, go ahead, go for it. I really... Sure, I got it. Okay, so, yeah. Here is just a very basic framework of what I'm working on this with a company called Q. They're a governance blockchain, an L2, EVML2, and their entire purpose is to provide a blockchain specific for governance. They have some really unique mechanics. One's called the root nodes, which basically allows... It's a real world entity. You can actually elect your own root nodes. They have the ICC, the International Chamber of Commerce, because this is primarily... The font is not seen in the font. Sorry? Yeah, maybe you can... Can you go into Presentational or zoom it out? It's really hard to see. Is it? Okay. Yeah, like that, maybe you can... I can see it. Give me one sec. It works. Remove the sidebar. Yeah, remove the sidebar. I got you. That's better, that's better. Okay, good. So, basically it's a very simple DAO mechanism. It's your typical proposal vote, your members vote on the vote, and then it's ratified. The key difference here is this concept of the root node. And the root node is a real world KYC entity, of which it's sort of like an arbitration court. Think of it like Kleros, but it's more centralized. You have these root nodes, which are paid a dividend by Q themselves. It's their own sort of service. And they have the ICC for International Chamber of Commerce, for their DeFi sort of root node intervention requirements. They have a number of other sort of high quality, what you could consider high quality people. But the idea here is that you can fill the root node position with anything. So you could fill the root node position with people from the NIH. From any of these organizations that you feel would be beneficial for the future of the adoption of DSI, they could actually be incentivized to become a root node. But the core point here is that you have a DAO mechanism, which is incredibly transparent. It's cheap to use. It's powerful. It's optimized for governance. And what the sort of suggestion I had here is that we would have a constitution to be clear. This DAO governs a constitution and the upholding of that constitution. So here they've actually gone through and created the constitution for us as a service. Like this is all created and real in the constitution exists. And it's a very simple constitution. It's written in English law. And it's essentially saying that this DAO has the objective of upholding the constitution and the members of the DAO have certain requirements and responsibilities to determine that constitution and then uphold that constitution. The constitution itself is the thing that is flexible and the constitution is what we're, the proxy here is the commons agreement, right? Which is the guidelines of what is a good standard of DSI. And essentially what we have here is an idea that there's a way to grade a project's ability to be a DSI project. Like, are you giving it a mark based on a rubric of how decentralized is it? How transparent is it reporting? How is it publishing? Is it using DSI native tools when it's publishing? Is it using what blockchains are it's using? Is it using Ethereum, which is obviously highly decentralized and secure? Or is it using an L2, which has just one set of multisig? These sorts of things, which you can actually create in this guidelines document a rubric, a scoring rubric. And then you have now a document of which you can compare new projects against. The eventual idea here is that the new projects can fill out a form or be assessed through this process. And then at the end, they are issued a score or an NFT like gold, green, gray or 10 to one on the scale. And this is something that now belongs to them. And they can use that for putting on their website. Say we have the DSI funding working group Gold Standard Snap and they put on their website. Or when people come to us, so protocol labs for example, they say we have a $1 billion fund, we want to get the DSI, but you're the expert, so who should we give it to? And you say, well, here's a list of projects that have been graded by our ecosystem. Now, this is one cent, and Yaniv, I'm sure you might just like this. This is one effort at the term, like trying to put some labeling, trying to simplify and streamline the process so that people can actually interact with these decentralized protocols and trust them in an inherently trustless system. But the idea of this is that the way that this is structured is that any number of guidelines can be issued. So you could have the DSI Commons V1 and everybody can attest to that. And then you can have the DSI Uncommons V1 that somebody else could create. And that would also be fine. And what you're having here is a plurality of certifications to say, is this project doing DSI in a manner that we agree with? You can read the constitution and determine which one of these certifications you think is most valid. And then you can follow those attestations from there. So for me, this is a process by which, again, the inertia is damning, in my opinion, and we have to sort of just push on past the inertia. And the beauty of the decentralized system is that you can create governance mechanisms such that even if you make mistakes at the beginning, they can be rectified by the community, right? There's no way in a decentralized system such as this for any one participant or any one group to maintain control in perpetuity. And that's what this sort of governance flow is. I'm sorry. I have a number of suggestions about how this can be optimized and also suggestions about the constitution itself. And this is actually being done almost as a service by Q. It's a great use case for them because it's a very powerful project that we're doing and it's based on legitimate needs. And so they're giving us our full support including writing the constitution, helping us to ratify it legally, including helping us to recruit root nodes that we believe are actually valuable and also giving us grants as well to seed the treasury so that if somebody, for example, is working on this on a part-time basis, they can actually receive an incentive of doing so. And basically what I would like to see, because this is already done, I did this as a use case with them, what I would like to see would be some kind of, how do I say, some kind of backing from this as a concept and us to work together as a working group, in particular, those that are interested in the funding standards, in the standards aspect, work together to determine some kind of constitution, some kind of guidelines framework, it could be various, it could be multipolar. And we actually also at DeciWorld, which is the project I'm from, we actually are also creating AI evaluators which will basically allow you to have a rubric of this is the guideline, and then it will have a form that a project who wants to be assessed could fill out and there'll be an AI that essentially grades you according to its rubric and according to the answers. And that would essentially streamline the process massively, it will keep it transparent also, because you could determine the inputs on both sides. But what this is a way for humans to come in and govern this protocol, but in a fair and transparent way. You have essentially two core key players on our side, which is the projects coming in, and then the DAO members, I put it here as ethics, but call it standards. The standards DAO members, and then you have two tiers of membership, you have the average member, the general member, and then you have the expert panel. And the expert panel is most likely going to be a sort of incentivized position, and then the other DAO members probably less so. And even in here in the constitution, I'll just find it quickly. You have here the expert panel. So members of the expert panel may end such things. Their responsibilities are as such here. And the idea here is that you have a very clearly defined legal framework, which is actually ratified by law. And then you follow that, and then you have this decentralized participation framework where you can have multiple different standards, multiple different signals. And at the end you issue, this becomes an issuing authority, not the issuing authority, but an issuing authority for these ratings of which people can use to then fund. Just like Gitcoins did the public goods funding thing first, and now they monopolize the whole thing. Retroactively we can see that actually and wouldn't want to do that ourselves. But they did it and it's successful. They've given out over $100 million in public goods funding to really genuinely good cause it. So for better or worse, they did it and it works. And now they've funded a lot of public good stuff. So if we actually want to fund science, we have to have some of these frameworks and we have to spin them up. Because we're a group of people who get together and have these ideas, but like who's going to trust us as individuals? Well now you don't have to trust because you have an actual governance mechanism. And so that's what I'm sort of bringing to this table. I've been working on this for six months or so. Now I did actually nearly two years. I've been trying to get this together, but properly for six months. And this is the perfect group of people to get involved with it. So I'd just like to hear everybody's thoughts on that if you're interested. Thank you very much, Joshua. Anyone that wants to comment on this first? To come with. On Joshua's, any ideas? Joshua, is your system for administrative decisions only or for publishing a particular article too? A particular manuscript? So the manuscript is in itself not govern, the manuscript changes to the manuscript or the constitution. That is governed by the Dow. But what is actually within it? It's not of concern. I'm asking about scientific manuscripts sent for a preview. Is your system also for a preview? I don't think it is used for a preview well. No, it's really got nothing to do with the produce of science. It's only to do with the governance of these badges as you might like to call them, these certifications. Can I just say that this is a great idea, I mean. Sorry, I mean. Let's do it. Let's work at this group. Working group? Yeah, yeah, cool, cool. Yeah, definitely. Yeah. There's a question here, Schwarze Katze. How is this different? Yeah, go ahead. Oh, no, okay. So can it also be used to monitor science projects whether they're here to the badges or protocols or E6? Yeah, I mean, I'm sure you could push into the Constitution that the members of the expert panel would do a periodic review. See if they're maintaining that. That would be easily easy to do. You could have a decaying NFT. So you issue the NFT to the project and it decays over three months. Oh, that's nice. And again, with the AI as it is, and we actually are developing a system for this. And it's kind of like this. That could be done on an automated basis, you know. By the way, you raised your hand. Yes, sir. Hi, I hope you can hear me later. The connection is a little bit. Yeah, I really enjoyed your presentation, Josh. Thanks for this. I was also in touch with Nemo of Q Network working on some form of governance framework for this for quite a while now. And I think this can pretty much play out as like a DAO of DAO concept where we can collectively govern the whole ecosystem to grow. This is in particular interesting for everything related to also the flow of funds. So not only like giving away certificates, but also collectively govern between different D-side DAOs, what we want to do when there's a certain amount of money raised. So for example, giving it away on a request for grants and having like a due diligence screening process or pick starting some of these quadratic funds together with Gitcoin, for example. And there are a variety of reasons why this can be applicable and useful for us. So I would say let's definitely schedule another call for this because what I'm doing right now is like, yeah, again, setting up the whole D-side grants round on Gitcoin with like a variety of other people as well. And what's missing right now is like a long-term compliant way to distribute those funds. We are exploring with different free trade zones where we could possibly register a variety of institutions as well to collectively govern the funds. But yeah, still there's the governance in place to make decisions. So I think right now the best thing that we could do is having this down-of-down governance framework where we can collectively own the decision-making process in which direction we are growing the ecosystem while also staying legally compliant was like an alliance, for example, between different D-sci, D-sci entities that actively participate in this process. So this was like a two-thousandth sense that I wanted to bring in here because this is like highly aligned with what you just said and I'm looking forward to actually getting hands on with this process in the next two to three weeks. So there's some level of urgency. So yeah, just wanted to bring this up again in this group here. To be clear to that point, sorry, I know everyone's got their hand up, but this is very important. To be clear, I would not advocate at any point for a centralized control, or decentralized, of a group control of the funds themselves. I would actually suggest that this process would allow a certification, which would allow the funders to directly fund those that they think are most valid. I think us as a collective holding the funds would be a big mistake. It would put too much pressure on us and that would open us up to some kind of attack of people being like, who are these guys? Like, I would... Maybe just to... We have Janif and then also Victor, just one comment on this. I think how this can be structured is really that there is hopefully disagreement on many of these topics and therefore a plurality of different tasks that can be taken. These are common, for example, can write up one type of standard recommendation that can be used by what Joshua proposed here. And then there can be others that say, well, we don't agree with it, we don't want to do it this way, we change it. And what will be very important is that all of these things are kind of recorded within this ecosystem and maybe this working group. So we can see also how these different branches are operating, right? Can I directly add something to Joshua's point here? Okay, and then Janif. Yeah, because I just wanted to say that whether or not we have a system in place, for example, like in a framework of a B2B Dow to collectively decide in which direction we want to grow the ecosystem, there will be like a handful of people who govern funds either with the token sale or with governmental money. And they can pretty much decide if they want to spend the money on their own research projects in their own ecosystem or be open enough to support the newcomers of our ecosystem to thrive. And personally, I think this whole concept around ecosystem governance and B2B Dow is pretty interesting when it comes to ecosystem governance in a way. But yeah, this whole topic around who's owning the funds, where are they coming from? For sure I know, and I see some blockers there, but this is what's happening anyways. And I would love to see a future where instead of having like five stewards for a decide round on GitCon, for example, raising hundreds of K for general ecosystem growth, I think it can be like pretty much more useful to have it like in the hands of the majority of the organizations and institutions that are already working in decentralized science and creating positive impact for society to change and building up the tools so that we can better secure all this stuff and for sure also the funding distribution mechanisms to make it a lot more democratic in a way. So yeah. Thank you. Yeah, great. Yanif, you have been raising your hand, yeah. So one, I keep pointing out negatives or asking negatives, but what sort of elements of defensibility of the system have been tried to be introduced here? Because I've been posting in the chat, anything which is to decentralizes generally after some time, that just makes it very easy to be taken over. So you say there's a capacity for the group to update the constitution, then that sounds to me like some sort of malicious or over dominant actor has the capacity to affect the constitution in a way which best supports themselves or perhaps less conspiratorially, the constitutional governance of the system that you're building, Josh, it tends towards the most basic form which then becomes the one which is easiest to overtake, purely by statistical movements. Yes, so it's important to understand, Schwartz or Katz, this also answers your question which I was typing out. This is essentially no different in many ways to a traditional Dow governance model, it's just on-chain governance, but the two very specific things that the Q blockchain offers here is these root nodes and the constitution framework. So the constitution framework will, Yaniv, as you say, optimize for the simplest sort of container of the simplest way to to interpret the constitution which is these members must abide by the constitution, by the supporting document, sorry, I've been misusing the word, the supporting document which will be the guidelines. The constitution says that we must uphold by obeying the supporting document and the constitution is set in stone. And so there are guidelines, Yaniv, I'm very happy to send you the constitution as it exists right now because it's quite simple and it's good. Allay a lot of your fears about the potential for governance attack because there are some fundamental things that the constitution can be built on which is that if it decided to eventually become, if someone decided to try and attack the governance, which would be a difficult process in itself, but it could be, it is possible. Then the constitution would essentially revert back to and would revert the decision because it would go against the fundamental of the constitution, which is to uphold the guidelines. And there is, and especially with also the root nodes here as well, which is a natural real-world KYC identity which does get arbitration sort of say at the end of all of this, should they need to. The idea here is that you're not engaging the root nodes for any decisions at all, except those that are absolutely mandatory, but such as for example, potential governance attack. The issuance of any NFTs or anything like that would not be a root node decision. I'll share with you the constitution of the end because I think it will allay some of your fears. And Shratsikatsa, just again, this is a pretty standard governance mechanism with a few caveats of the constitution and the root nodes, which are great in my opinion for science in particular because people are a bit finicky and a bit more risk averse, but it's more the use case of it, which is to, and I had planned this before I ever heard of Q, this DCI ethics now, which is to issue some kind of certification in a decentralized manner, multiple potential certifications with multiple potential guidelines, right? Issue a certification that people can use as signaling when they engage in DCI because there's gonna be a lot of crap in DCI. There's gonna be a lot of scams in DCI. There's gonna be a lot of science which is bad science or dangerous science. And for people to have to not be able to sift through that without any kind of standardization, it's gonna destroy the space's reputation, right? Great, let's go. Me? Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. Joshua, I have a note and a question. A note, I think the DAO is best to be done using colony framework. It's probably the only science framework without dependency hell, although you know what is dependency hell or no. Dependency hell is when it's hard to impossible to install software because of its dependencies to other software that is not handled properly. And colonies without dependency hell are like other systems. I'm working on a carbon accounting project. I've tried to do with different DAOs, DAO tool kits, and I'm almost succeeded with, namely, colony. And question, do we have existing DAO that can be used for this purpose? As a folder of this constitution and framework? So, yes, I have the constitution, I'm gonna share it in the group chat. No, do we have an existing DAO, registered in the blockchain network DAO that you can use for this project? Or it's only to appear? This, it is, I think it's DAO has actually been launched and it has actually been launched and ratified by that constitution. However, it's not active and it was done as an MVP at a conference. Okay. So we would probably relaunch it with different parameters, or maybe not. I don't know. By the way, this is not me building it. I'm working through DeciWorld with Q. Q is the company doing it. They're very well capitalized. They have a lot of reputation. They have great resources. And I think that they are the kind of company that would actually help this sort of thing get off the ground. And as much as philosophizing about it in group chats, this is 100% necessary, there has to be some kind of action. And I think that they would be the kind of people that would put that into action because it's a use case for their blockchain. It's narrow in the set. Please type the URL of your DAO in the chat. Q.org. Josh, Josh, sorry, good construction. And faith met gone, which is why it's almost. But to that point of doing action, what I'm here to do work at a working group, what are the next steps? And then I do have a question about access stations, but that can be offline. The next steps for this would be for myself. Sunka, Martin and anybody else that's interested to really figure out that guideline because the governance framework, the technicalities, the constitution, everything is done. All we need now is the supporting document, which is the what is good DCI. The AI judge, also we need to develop that, but that's actually quite simple code. But what's the most difficult part is agreeing on a rubric of how to grade a project for good DCI. All right, awesome. And to get involved with that, that's what Sunka was talking about. Yeah, join here, yeah? I posted the link, so everybody is welcome to like go to go on whatever level, yeah? Tech, governance, ideas, so and yep. Perfect, thank you. Please share it, please share it to other people. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. So in the interest of time and because some people have already dropped out of the call, this has been a really nice hour and really great discussions. Thank you very much. I close this here. I invite you again to join the telegram where we can have follow-up discussions. There are these different groups that have been established also. If you want to comment there on specifics, we can take it from there. And there has been also a comment before on the telegram is really not the best place to collaborate and if we have things to follow up, there's two ways how I see this can go. Last time we had some people already that were putting their names and this is all in the invite these documents are linked. They have all like some people committed to different groups. So one way to go obviously is that those people that are interested to take on a specific topic that they can start creating subgroups, chats, invite people to share documents and so on. This can be all coordinated for the moment through the telegram group. And then next month we have a call that I have mentioned in the beginning and open call for research basically on this topic of collaborative online platforms. There's already a lot of them existing and this is a key for this side. I think that people can meet on the web and collaborate online on projects. I'd like to see ideally two or three of those or someone that has done some more deep research on those different platforms that are existing on the success and also the failures of those to present. And that would be the main topic of next month's call. And also in the telegram group, we can take it from there and discuss what are the lineups for the next month to come. From there, I guess we can also decide more how we can make sure that things are getting going, getting like Joshua's idea now is getting traction and we're moving on. And then maybe we can also decide better in the future what type of results we want to present beyond pushing individual projects. Maybe we can define this in the next weeks. Yeah, with that said, I close it. Victor, anything quick? I want to ask everybody an advice but because I'm from everybody, I think it's not sweet. Sorry, it didn't. I want to ask everybody for an advice but because several people might answer it's not sweet. So, next time. Victor, let's do it next time. I feel also I checked the channel, I've seen from the chat there was not really anyone else that wanted to really like, for example, share a project update. I think we have this topical cause from now on. And then if you really feel that we could you should change the structure of this working group cause, let me know as well. We are really open to have a very inclusive process. But with that said, I stop here because also for those that couldn't join or had to leave, it's unfair if we stay like half an hour too long now. So, it will be recorded, we'll share the recording or at least the presentation part of the recording. Okay, thank you very much and wish you a good evening or day. Thank you, Martin. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks.