 We're coming, we do not expect this interest. We are simply facilitators and we will not be speaking very much, but it's all about you guys and collaborating. We are trying to solve a coordination problem by having this workshop. Okay, cool. Should we get started? Yeah. Okay. So as Eva said, we're just going to talk for a brief second to give you an intro to why we put on this workshop, why we're giving you guys this space to talk a little bit on our thoughts, and then how this session is going to go. So if you don't know where you are, this is Workshop on DOWs. It's titled Beyond DOWs, a evolving human organization. So we're going to be talking all things DOWs and everything, wonderful and horrible about this. So as I said, we're just going to run really quickly, maybe 10 to 15 minutes. The format of the session is a workshop, so we're going to have you guys working with each other. It's something that you can come in and out of, but it would be great for you guys to stay the whole session. It's an hour and a half, so it's not too long. We promise that it will probably be okay. Okay, so let's just start off with why we're holding this session. So even I think that DOWs can be more than multisyncs, and that's probably, I mean, I hope not a hot take, but DOWs are representing this really cool thing that we're all talking about. I mean, that's why we're all in the room here today, because this is something that is really interesting, but also really big. So what inspired this workshop? So I guess I wanted to go through why we think DOWs can be more than multisyncs, and from our observation in the space, what we really think is happening, and pitch that to you guys, see what you think, and then we can have a conversation about it. So we believe that the hegemonic approach to human coordination is being challenged as though it's underserved and disempowered by the current system, search for more open, adaptable, and representative solutions. So with the emergence of DOWs, those weird things that we're all building, de-sensualized governance and token engineering, we now have this new design space to re-engineer incentives and mechanisms, and that's really cool. But the word DOW kind of sucks. I mean, really sucks. It kind of means all of these different things that don't really line up, and so it causes a lot of confusion, it causes a lot of inability to work with each other, and it causes this whole space to be completely not accessible to anybody who can actually use this technology to solve their problems, these people who are being disempowered and underserved by our traditional power structures. So this is just a little bit of the DOWs that are in the space. We have everything from grant DOWs to people solving climate change with DOWs to people helping political candidates, meaning themselves to the office, and so there's a lot of different things happening, and it's kind of a lot to do. But one resounding thing that is kind of connecting all of these is that they're kind of envisioning this new way of organization, right? One that wants sustainability, over-profit, regeneration, instead of scarcity, and more cooperative, distributed ways of organizing and working over hierarchical, did I say that right? And centralized ways of working. And this is really fucking cool. This is something that, hey, I'm like serious, I like this stuff. This is what a lot of people have been working towards for a very long time. So this isn't new to just the people in this room. This is very new to us, but it's not new to everybody outside this room. That's what it was meant to say. So this is a really cool vision, right? This is a very counter hegemonic approach to organization that could serve and empower the people who are being disempowered and underserved right now. So Eve and I wanted to get this space to start talking how we can involve beyond DOWs, beyond this weird little thing that we all really like talking about. And how do we start getting towards that vision of sustainable, regenerative, and cooperative organizations, right? And so we believe that there's three things that we need to make that happen. One is collaboration. This is something that cannot be done alone. That's quite obvious. The second is accessibility. So this cannot just be accessible to the people who can come out to Osaka and Japan for a DEF CON. This should be something that anybody can access and build with. And also common ground. We kind of have to get on the same page about what we're building. And what's really cool is that most of the workshops on DOWs at DEF CON have been around the same concept of how are we getting working within the same language, within the same frameworks. And that's super, super important for our evolutionary process. So yeah, that's the basis for this workshop. Eve is going to take it and tell you how we're trying to provide this space to start approaching that counter hegemonic vision. And we can go from there. Thank you, Abby. So one of the biggest criticisms I have with this area is that we talk about these passwords like DOW without thinking about why. It might just boost our cloud or ICO, but we haven't really thought about how to apply it into like Abby said, outside of this room, and to web too. So people who don't know the word DOW and the people who will never care about the word DOW. And so the best way we thought to do this was to collaborate and have people share their learnings. We have several DOWs represented here or people working on them. And aside from Twitter, there's not a lot of collaboration. And so this in itself, we're trying to solve a coordination problem by allowing for that collaboration and talking more about how do we make it more accessible and what should we be thinking about in terms of common ground as a tool set. So, you know, DOW itself is not a thing, but you know, things like co-ops and savings groups have existed for a while. And so how did DOWs play into a larger ecosystem of organization types outside of just this Ethereum buzzword. And so we have a few prompts here. And I'll go through them exactly what we think. You guys should be talking about. Our goal would be if you guys could separate into six groups. And so we have on the walls each of these prompts. And if there are people who don't wanna work on the prompts, that's fine. We also recognize this room is massive right now. And so if it makes more sense to do it all together, we can do that, although that might be harder and we probably won't get through all of them. But I can start going through them. So here's a prompt that's our own for quite board. So firstly, why DOWs? Why are we here in the first place? Why do we think these are different organization types than, like I mentioned, co-ops or savings groups or credit unions? And if they're not different, then how can we start collaborating more with the history that has existed with experimentation globally and different kinds of developing and developations? To DOW or not to DOW? So a lot of people like to now include the word DOW and everything. I would say that's not always the best use case. And so we wanna pin down, when is it not right to use a DOW? And really think about why are we saying the word DOW is a simply for a cloud or does it actually provide a tool set for us that can improve the way that we organize? DOW Toolkit, so aside from the technical infrastructure, what other components are necessary for us to achieve it? So companies like OpenLar doing a lot of innovation around the legal structure. What other business structures should we have? Are we using the same social tools like Discord, et cetera? And if so, that's awesome. But maybe we should be more pinpointed on how we actually need those. You know, there's like a lot of controversy on leadership or project management within a DOW and you still need those web two tools to achieve the organization that we want within a DOW. So governing DOWs, how are they different from the existing structures? Do we need identity solutions? What other components do we need to make them successful? Outside of the civil attack problem, what other problems exist within DOWs and how can we solve them? Experimentation, so as I mentioned, there's a lot of people here who are either making DOWs or a part of DOWs and it would be great for everyone to share their learnings. And so something we learned in mall life is like a lot of people are participating in a lot of different DOWs but without a fundamental, like, there's some shelling point to communicate that. We actually aren't sharing a lot of information. DOW flavors, so I guess piggybacking a little on the taxonomy DOW workshop earlier today. What are the components of different kinds of DOWs? What are the different kinds of DOWs? What are the features that DOWs should have to be successful? And maybe there's people here who are part of that workshop that would be great to have you guys participate in that. But defining more so the lines between different DOW types might make it easier for us to identify what is the DOW outside of this vague term. Cool, so those prompts were created by EvenEye but also pushed out to the general community and a bunch of Twitter shit posting that we've been doing. And so we've actually built out those prompts with a lot more, like, guiding questions that can be used to lead the groups. And you'll be able to find those on the HackMD page and the Excel sheet. But so we don't just want you guys to just jump in and, like, have discussions. We want this to be something that is actionable and so we can pull out these insights and actually apply them back to the community. So what do we want from you, right? So first, we want you guys to capture and share the key insights from your discussion groups through collaborative note sharing. And then actually share, work together, obviously, and play nicely and engage with each other. And then we want you guys to present those insights to each other. So we want this to be a quick breakout session where people dive into each of these prompts and then come back together and share these insights. So that means that we're gonna have to have one group leader for each group and one person who's taking notes. And those are the two people, so I can't wait to see all those hands volunteer for the groups. That's gonna be really great. And then I guess the guiding framework for what we want out of this session, because it's so hard to dive into all of these big topics and have structured conversation, is more of a proposal for frameworks, deliverables, and continued work that can come out of this workshop that can be worked on with each other, with different groups, and then, again, push back to the community so we can be evolving together. This work only begins here. This is not something that we believe will stop when it exits this room. Our role is just to create space for people to come together and have these discussions. And also, we just want you guys to take inspiration and use this as a launch base for more collaborative discussions around dows. As Eva said, we have tons of people who are representing the different dow groups, dow guilders, dows in general, here in this room. So take this time to kind of break down those project silos and have conversations that in real life, not just over Twitter, which is really important. So, to talk about logistics, and then I'll take a couple questions just to make sure that we're all on the same page. We're actually gonna be doing our note sharing. If anybody didn't know, we have this hack and dee for DevCon. This is a QR code to get it, or you can just find it through the DevCon app. And we've actually set up the document with all of the different group categories. This is the link, when we didn't think that we would have slides. And so, this is where we're gonna be taking our notes and sharing insights, and this will be accessible by everybody. And again, whoever is volunteering to take notes, do this in the hack and dee, that would be great. So, about the group. Okay, so to go back to the original question, we have a really big group of people here. So, I wanna do a quick check on if people would rather be small working groups where you split into corners, or a larger group discussion that Eve and I facilitate and work through each of the problems. So, who wants working groups? Raise your hands. Hi. Hi. Yeah, really hi. Okay. Okay, now who wants a larger group discussion? Guys, it's about half. The other group. One. What? One. One. One. One. One. One. One. One. One. One. One. Okay. Yeah. Guys, I think we're gonna go with groups, okay? Also, also, also I mean, if a group forms and wants to go somewhere else, if you tell them what time we come back, I mean, there's more space than this room for working groups. Thank you. Nice. Can I just mention that, yeah, just as he said, you don't have to work physically here because this is all on hack and dee. We'll see all of it, and our goal is to publish all of this as a collaborative effort on some medium of choice with all of your notes, and also the frameworks or deliverables that you guys create on how to make these easier. Take the question. Can you show your floor again? I don't understand what you guys are talking about. No. No. So basically, Dao itself, a decentralized organization, is not new. We think it's new because we have this new fun thing called a smart contract that allows decentralized coordination. We want to better understand what are the differences and similarities between things like co-ops, savings groups, credit unions, et cetera, that are very parallel to Grant Dao's or Aragon Dao's, et cetera, and what are the tools that we need now to make those easier given that we have this new technology stack that we're using? All of these prompts are on this Excel sheet that you can also access through the HackMD document. So if you want more information on the prompts, you can find them here. So I think that we're going to do. There's stickers on the wall for the groups by your prompt. But if you don't want to be in this room as it is quite packed, as our moderator said, you can leave and then come back. I think coming back at 4.30 would make sense. We want it half an hour at the end for discussion and presentation. So let's everybody take the time now, coordinate the amazing distributed people that you are, and find yourselves into one of these six prompts. If you have another prompt and you have a group around you and you want to talk about something else, go ahead. Now is the time. As I mentioned, all the information is on the HackMD. All right, guys, let's wrap it in 10 Ds. So if you're in a group, can you add your name? Click the lab in Ds so we know who's going to be in the group. Good, good, good. It's like a heat cancellation. Come on, everybody. This is our virtual radio. This is a campus. This is our virtual radio. I don't think we have the most people at the moment. I'm confused. We have more, more, more people. I think we have more. We have more people. And if everybody could just take a second to find out. Okay, group in the back. You still got some stragglers in the back. Is everybody listening to my beautiful voice? I hope so. Hey. Okay, cool. Hi guys. Guys, that was from what I heard from those discussions. Everything sounded really, really fucking great. So I'm really excited to hear from all of you guys. The game plan now is I want each group to nominate one person to come up and share the general key highlights, the proposals moving forward, whatever they think is relevant that they want to share with the other groups, nominate one person, and that person is going to have around five minutes for however long that they want. Yeah. That's the rule. Hey guys, come sit down. I'm going to repeat those two options. If you took notes outside of HACMD, make sure to put them into HACMD before you leave, because we know some people were taking this for notes. All right, I think we have everybody in the room now. So I'm going to repeat those instructions one more time. So one lovely person from each group is going to come up and spend however long, maybe max five minutes, sharing the insights, thoughts, general discussion points that they think is really important for every other group to hear. So I want every group to nominate one person. That person is going to come up here with a microphone and have the full attention of the room. So we're going to do that for each group. I think we ended up only having five groups. So again, this will be probably 20, 25 minutes. We'd love for everybody to stay to hear all the insights. And then that's it, okay? Great, any questions? No, okay. So who wants to start first or should we start one through six? Inverse six. Inverse. Six, do you want to go first? No, ma'am. All right, who's coming up? Announce yourself. Hi, I'm Josh. He's coming. Where'd you go out? What do you see that way? Which James was? I'll show you. Okay, well, I thought I was going to hear about that. Are you part of James now? So, what's the fact? As was about the flavors of dows, we basically just tried to go through and think of all the characteristics that could be on off switchers or could be scales or sort of about velocities. And so these different points that make up the flavors of the doubt. The first one was the permissionlessness of it, right? Is it purposely really open and permissioned? Or is it, you know, for managing funds for close medical people and the permissionlessness of it? The second one is a for profit slash for sustainability slash not a goal and just doing grants, right? And so where is it given now sets on that parameter? The next one was around the number of members. So how many people, you know, again, purposely as small as a large, is it meant to scale to a million people or is it only meant to be five? The next one that was pretty key was the fund allocation. So is it, you know, is the point of it just to deploy capital in different ways? Or is it how to govern, you know, what color to paint my mom's house? The next one was, is the token or not token, right? So that was something I kind of ended right down. But, you know, does it have a token inside of it? Is that the point to it or is there not at all when it doesn't require it? The other thing, oh, is it focused on sort of like people and open access and creating a middle world almost? Or does it have sort of like hard coded in it? What are the, what are the point of it is, right? So it should never change, you can just say like this or it should develop over time, you know, that sort of immutability of the doubt is another one of the flavors. And then one of the things we talked through was going through Doustet, Colony, Paragon, Panvala, nice. And then sort of the Mollack Forks and what all those flavors. I don't want to do it for analysis, I can sort of do it. Those are clear on the hack of the day. So yeah, the cores for those sort of six different pieces of the puzzle. And then also the different companies and sort of how this all works. Thanks. Anybody want to ask anything for this group? Or add? Nope. Yeah, what did you plan on for the next steps? What's that? Did you plan on anything for the next steps? Oh, geez, now you've got a spot. I think next steps for the different flavors of the doubt. I mean, I think we're going to get them up on hack of day, maybe sort of expanding out these flavors. I think, I mean, no one wants to ask a question now, but I'm pretty sure there's other flavors and other attributes that make up a doubt. So contributing to them, I think would be really useful in sort of building out this lesson and then also putting back the community, right? Because I think there's a lot of community members that aren't in this room that actually care a lot about Doustet and sort of understanding how at least the people that are in the room are thinking about these ideas and thinking about the different flavors and attributes that make up a doubt is really important. So it would encourage you to go to the hack of day as well and contribute to the discussion and build out these flavors. Nice, we had one question. Okay. That's not a question, but a comment. I have like a crazy idea that you could build a doubt around, like a state you have in a doubt around crazy things. Like for example, presence or like anything else that is important for the community. So for example, then have as much say about things related to as think as many times you have in this conference is related to that thing. Maybe that's not the best measure but you can come up with better measures. So that doesn't have to be like a value token but it doesn't have to be anything. Which one would you like to proceed? Yeah, yeah. Cool. Thanks. I agree. That's a good ending. Nice, we've got another question. Experimentation, who's coming up? Announce yourself. Experimentation. Thank you. Hi, I'm Dan Finlay. Speaking for the Experimentation team, we spoke on, there were like four themes, major topics. There was what have you learned from past experiments or a variety of past doubt creators in the group. We talked about what we should be cautious of with future endeavors and then also what do we want to do with future endeavors. And then I've got like a little assorted category. So for past experiments that were in our group, we had a great threat of a kid coin with a recent CLR model and, you know, so it's based on the quadratic application that was italics legal. Rattlesnake and it may have some questions, open questions about identity verification and things like that. But the last round was very successful. In particular, 2,200 contributions were made and they noted that it seemed that a UX improvement that helped people visualize how their vote was really affecting it. It gave this like kind of social media a windfall of enthusiasm and participation, which was really cool to hear about. There was some conversation about this thing called lived out that I had heard about. It was a plasma scaling doubt that it sounded like it had some autonomous reputation enforcement that would penalize people for things as simple as being sick for a week. And so there was this kind of sentiment like sometimes it's how you encode things to don't reflect the community sentiment. There did seem to be a group sentiment that if the group had agreed to slash reputation, this wouldn't seem so bad, but the fact that somebody just didn't vote for a week felt inhumane. There was, then there was a, there's some other doubt alluded to that had some like private HR-ish issue that was now a public vote and everybody sees that somebody's going to get fired. And so there's a question of like, how many of these kinds of more human things should be on the chain in general? There's a little bit of conversation with the DAPPS experiment from an anti-typical Republican status with a curating DAPPS. It was deliberately designed to avoid voting because voter participation is an issue to kind of come back to later, it's like voter participation part, probably. Then we're talking about what you should be cautious of when building dows. Actually, we have one major thread that kind of dominated here. There was like a question of, it was like politics versus autonomy and it kind of ties back into like just the theme of autonomy. We're just finding doubt like autonomous is a letter in the word and how important is that into it? There was like a testimony from a mohawk dows. I know everybody, I'm the founder, I can pretty, I know how to hustle the votes and get an initiative passed and some people might not want to be a part of the doubt that is like that. And there was kind of a conversation about will dows are going to have stronger, weaker cultures and maybe the trust monetization in these systems comes from transparency, not the lack of trust systems. So those are the experiments. We had another thread about what we should be cautious about. Oh, sorry, that was what we should be cautious about. Politics. Yeah, so can we avoid politics or is that intrinsic too? I think that was an interesting conversation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it asks us ourselves that. What can we experiment with besides dows? There was a, so for one thing, a dows aesthetic mechanisms, they can be coupled with norms in a community. Those norms can't be self-fulfilling and create feedback loops, right? If you establish some norms, like you've got a community of votes in the way and slash people, like obviously you're gonna create a self-fulfilling kind of community in that way, one concept. You donate on chain and you get, for every dollar you successfully allocate, you get a token and you help oversee the funds. It sounded a lot like Convali, you should talk to him around. Okay, anyways, there's probably a few dows like that. And then also, what was the last thing? Oh, other thoughts, here's the sorted things. Oh, yeah, the whole autonomy thread, can you avoid politics? More dows should think about profiles for users that are participating and hearing the experiences towards them. I actually wish I asked for more detail on that because I wasn't clear whether it was like building the experience towards the profiles that people were, letting people represent profiles. So you'll get an indication of what you meant. I'm loosely summarizing that, I didn't fully grok it, sorry. And then, there can be problems with information asymmetry and dows when there's people who are curating and stuff, like they might know what are actually good proposals and stuff. There are costs that are non-monetary, the usage kind of comes back to voting costs, so how many decisions were there were there were costs of voting with dows. There was a little taxonomy, kind of similar to what Group One suggested, like some are fund allocation vehicles and some are decision-making or parameter-setting dows. Sometimes legal restrictions can play into dows, so you can either bake that into the incentives and mechanisms that you're considering when designing your dows. Or you can just copy and paste bylaws from existing corporate or government structures and we can basically just have those but with guaranteed trustless enforcement. There's a little bit of a thread, I think we got a little bit of agreement by the end where it was like dows are kind of just us building rules that are more trustlessly enforced. It seems like we got kind of a loose agreement but there were a couple caveats about whether that, there was no a dow cannot have a dictator and no a dow has rules enforced trustlessly and transparently, so those are the two big caveats that isn't just the organization that's on it. Voter participation should be required, should be opt-in, there's an idea, what if your lock screen on your phone required you to vote on stuff before you use it? You know, like, and yeah, security tokens, it was a notion of like maybe you get future revenues for voting, well, questions about how to change the rules and questions of how do you do with early members having dominance of reputation in their dows? So can you, should you decay or is it a good thing to have a reputation, I don't know. Yeah, anyways, yeah, it's kind of cool. That was great. Any questions or additions to add to that? That was a really comprehensive list. I'm really excited to read through those. Lot of really good ideas. The profiles thing is kind of interesting, Dan. I guess a comment or what I take away from that is like, we should definitely have like culture is what brings people together and so profiles are, culture is a component of profiles and so if you have too many heterogeneous people then it's really hard to actually create culture or like in a line goal. That's how I'd interpret that. Great, that's awesome. Yeah, tons of thoughts there. Okay, cool, so let's move on to governing dows. Governance, who wants to come? Nice, hey, announce yourself. Hi, my name is Jason, I'm from Malaysia and this is John Light from Oregon. Oregon Network. Oregon Network. So we have a lot of amazing content, okay, personally that's what I think, okay, in the last 15 minutes. So we talk about governance, okay, reason being is because if the governance model breaks down then everything basically pucks over, so. So the first problem, okay, is should governance be on-chain and off-chain? Not all should be on-chain, okay, really depends on what you're looking at where you draw the line. Incentivization models, for example, okay, should be on a DAO, should be on-chain. The line is drawn based on what the purpose of the DAO is. A good example that was brought up was Molok DAO as a good reference to check out. They are very clear line, ETH 2.0 development. Voting should be on-chain and it should be centered around a shared vision. So the second problem that we went into was how do we support decentralized governance and immediately one of the members said that before anything else, the interface is very important because the current voting itself already sucks, so we need to read the voting experience much more easier for people to come in. And they said, look at Arocon, Arocon is a good reference to look at. And one of the other members mentioned it would be cool if we have an app, okay, build a big community and test the concept. And another member mentioned we need, not only do we need a good interface, we also need a better problem, how to guide users to make informed decisions. So how we communicate and coordinate so that people will participate and they'll be meaningful. Then we move on to the third problem, which is, what is the problem? Somebody shout out, what's the test? Are you testing governance? Yeah, how do you test governance, right? So before we even talk about testing, one member pointed out something very important, which is to first establish what success does look like. Successful governance should match with returns, not necessarily financial returns, but also social well-being returns. The fourth problem that we went into is that how much does GAU's look mirror to corporation models and are there any lessons that we can learn from it? So in the very short time that we have, there was a lot of examples that we can refer to. Again, social benefit cooperation, donor advisor funds, participatory budgeting, like for example, what's happening in the US Madrid. Please feel free, all these keywords, keynotes that you can check out later and you can do research on them as well. The fifth problem is when do we need to use identity solutions in GAU? So what was brought up was, whenever there's quadratic funding, or whenever there's one person, one equals one vote, okay, an identity solution is relevant. Who is working on this? We brought up identity, okay. All of the members point out that when it comes to identity, it really is the holy grail of this subject matter, but we still need to continue to work on it with what we have. Another member mentioned that, you know, rather than Facebook giving me an identity, okay, why not we work backwards that a person can basically put in the identity that he wants and then fills it up from there rather than having a centralized authority giving the identity. That was a very interesting idea I thought. Why would I just use IPFS with my identity on the blockchain and then get it from there? One other member also brought up, okay, that. That's it. Right, sorry. That's okay. Identity as one vote, okay, can be capitalistic because when that happens, the more you have, the more power you also have in the voting process. What will be interesting, but more difficult to actually do is to have identity as one unique person. And as for next steps, John. Yeah, great summary. So yeah, some next steps that I pulled out. We didn't discuss as a group because we got absorbed into the discussion itself, but some next steps I pulled out of the discussion would be perhaps to develop a good information, curation and discussion methods. So first, you know, facilitating a great way to have discussions around decisions that Dallas are making, but then also to curate that information for people who maybe aren't as engaged in all of the discussions, but who want to contribute to the decision making. Another is delegated voting. So I think that kind of follows from that whereas somebody isn't able to make an informed decision, they might be able to delegate their vote to somebody who they trust to make a good decision on their behalf. And along these lines, who would be good to have an easy voting interface that perhaps works with maybe all of the different Dow models so people can see what Dow's they're a part of and vote really easily. I think you're gonna need delegated voting for that so that they can keep their keys offline and then just vote from keys that are on their phone or something. It would be great to have a unique personhood mechanism to enable ID dependent mechanisms like quadratic funding or quadratic voting that he mentioned earlier. So he mentioned a couple of projects that are working on this and it would be good to see these like integrated directly with Dow or voting mechanisms so like bright ID or IDN3. And then finally, perhaps we could design some like off the shelf models that people could use for low stakes, short run Dow's so that we can quickly experiment with governance and most importantly in a diverse set of communities so that we can see how these tools interact with a bunch of different types of cultures and people from different backgrounds and age groups and so on and so forth in a way where people don't feel like intimidated by just how much is at stake but something that could just be quick and fun. But yeah, I think those will all be pretty cool next steps to take on as a community. I just wanna address something you said as a next step which is an easy interface and actually Dow's stock has something called Alchemy which is where all the Dow's are housed and you can participate. And also, Venge's is building something called Dow House which is where you can access a bunch of them all at Forks and actually do some of the functions from there instead of like a mollusk site to something like a rage quit. So we definitely have these things growing in our ecosystem. Any other comments? You can access all your Dow's from all the things at the same time. This is my Dow dashboard. My Dow dashboard. My Dow dashboard. There's an eight Berlin project. And the Dow House is for launching your own more. Launching and access. And access. Be cool, maybe another one that's to list these resources so we can all understand and start coordinating to know how to be really nice. And that was mentioned and it was on your slides on bringing Dow's, Dow's, Dow's there, one of this. So those guys listed all this because maybe we could. Yeah. Cool. No, in fact, somebody from our team they talked about having a united Dow's. So imagine that. Oh my God. Nice. Check you need this. Wow. Yes. I like that. Don't say United Nations. Reversing the United Nations. I did. Okay, cool. Thanks guys. That was awesome. Take your notes into the HackMD. Please do so so we can capture them. Thank you. Go ahead. Should we start a new Dow to continue with all of this? Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. We wish we had more of a new start. Our attention, this is so awesome and I'm really enjoying this. So I don't think that the Dow toolkit met, right? Okay, so that one's canceled. So to Dow or not to Dow, we've talked about ethics. Come on up. Announce yourselves. Is this feedback really, really annoying? Are you guys good? Okay. Thanks guys. We can cut the mic if you need to. We know who you guys are. Hi everybody, I'm Georgia. So we don't have it in a very cohesive manner. I'm going to go through and not take too much time. So if we want to Dow or not to Dow, there was some strong opinions both sides in our group. Some people very much like to Dow is never a solution for anything. All the way up to. We should be using it all the time. So I'm going to go through some of the points that we brought up. It was a lot around ethical concerns as well, the main problems that we were addressing. And how governance by vote kind of assumes that voters are informed. So there's an ethical problem with assuming that voters are informed, definitely. When votes are weighted, this could allow for differences and discrepancies in how well a voter is informed as well. So we were looking at whether there's an ethical responsibility to impress upon voters that they should be informed as much as possible, as constantly as possible. And so that comes to that information and symmetry which other people have been talking about already. We talked about accessibility issues, single issue voters. We're about people who only care about one thing and are not going to participate in everything else. What does that do? And most people default to inaction. So what happens when we change this model? We're insisting that they take action in order to participate. And that goes against a lot of behavioral psychology around how people operate. So what is going to motivate them to take part? And who has the privilege to participate all the time? So if taking part in this now involves you to be constantly voting, who are those people who are going to do that? Maybe not the person with two jobs and many kids. So there's some questions there. And then if you think about, well, if we're going to incentivize people to take part, what damage does incentivization do? So if it's about gamification, what are people going to do to win the game? Do they really care then about the activity that they're involved in? Whether they're voting or not? There's a strong feeling that there's a lack of knowledge generally amongst people building dows about the existing literature out there, specifically around e-voting and why e-voting is problematic. So I can't remember the name of this guy over here. It's got lots to talk about that. So we'll talk to him if you want to learn more about that. Phil. Phil. So I'm a user researcher, so I care about understanding the needs of users. And I think we should be speaking to people who we're building for to understand their problems and their motivations rather than just building it and seeing who will come. And that's a good way of addressing the ethics there too. So yes, some of the things that we could look at is for communities, small communities, specifically marginalized populations as well, we could be understanding the reasons why people now don't vote. If we could solve that problem and understand that and address it, then that could probably then solve for all the people who do also want to vote as well, so you can have higher participation then. And also understand why people are voting for the wrong reasons too. So there was feeling that the scope of current dows seems a bit too large. And we came to the conclusion that in order for a dow to really make sense, you need a group of people who have in common the desire to collaborate, cooperate, and have accessibility to do this thing. And then one of these three things is missing, that is probably not right to have a dow for it. There was definitely feeling that where a dow is addressing something really life-changing, where the proposals could mean life or death, or significant effects for people's lives, we are not ready right now to be addressing any of those kind of problems. And thinking about what is the risk to a person who leaves a dow, you know, is there a risk to them in any way too? And yeah, we talked just a little bit more about, just because this was brought up, the idea of could you get someone to vote in order to unlock their phone? Well, what we might end up doing is in order to incentivize people to take part in dows, we could be building in the same manipulative design practices from one to two applications in order to get people to vote. So there's an ethical question around there as to whether we really want to be doing that. Do we want to make it like a game so that people participate if they don't actually really care the outcome as well? I think that's about it, but we're gonna put our notes in. Thanks. Everyone in our group needs to put your name on this thing down and hand it around. Thank you. Sorry, so do you have any thoughts on the different cautionary principle of in what cases is the dows okay and in what cases is the dows not? We came up with the idea that small communities around single issues are the best place right now. So, particularly groups who can muster around a problem together and solve it that way. So, let's organize access to the order of the religious agency, for example, or protect this place and learn something which is a direct service, and we can all very contentious. Great. Thanks guys. Any others? Any others? Did I see a hand? So. We could have had an answer or a question towards that one. Because I thought maybe you walked in and are interested in the social scalability of some extent and maybe those kind of organizations in small, contained communities would need a blockchain and maybe you can organize with the face-to-face interaction. Yeah, thank you. And maybe that's interesting you guys like to kind of take those structures and scale them up for a larger community. Well, there was a question that we had in our group which is if this is already working effectively within a small community by whatever method they have then why complicate it by adding a gap? Coordination. Trust. Trust. Why do they trust each other? Trust each other. Trust each other. Trust each other. Trust each other. Trust each other. Trust each other. There's a question of whether, you know, we're all building to create the US and blockchain is easier, but are there actual tools that a blockchain can provide to help this community, even if they're doing okay? Like is there something else that this technology brings that would improve the coordination? It requires behavior change and behavior change is the hardest thing to get right, to get people to do. So right now, the far into entry is way too high. That's what we should be addressing. Yeah, and maybe finding the use cases and the places where people are ready to make that behavioral change, but not so much focusing on the ones where they're not ready for it yet and analyzing that, which is a really good point. I think it's this. Yeah, hold on. Sorry, you wanna give a quick question? Yeah, just, I think tools like Lumio, I don't know how many people are familiar with Lumio, where it's just, you know, it's basically interface for voting. I feel like that's very good for a small group of people who trust each other and have some kind of physical capacity, I'd say, or like, kind of experience with interfaces. So that still definitely assumes a lot, but I find that non-blocked tools that are also very similar to what they would scale up to be are really good onboarding tools. So it always starts with a small group of Lumio before I kind of move on to something that has, you know, gas transactions, et cetera, but it's stinking. Yeah, yeah. But it's really good like paper prototyping. Lumio has another very cool advantage that we actually should really monitor. And it's not just made for voting, it's made for sense making around the program itself. So the tool is geared around finding a better collective solution than any individual solution. And that could be something we should be thinking about instead of yes, no, binary things. But at the same time, I can argue that, no, we should keep it warm and simple, yes, no, binary things. Yeah, on the full amount of behavioral change as well, I think a really interesting idea behind that is that when you look at governance right now, like, you know, as a space, we try to be pretty, well, as this community at least, we try to be pretty anti, you know, money, money, money, let's do that. But I think when you look at governance right now, money plays a huge role, right? Either you as president, you get paid a bajillion dollars and then you get a bajillion dollars for even, right, for every year of your life. And these whole governance structures have been built up and financed around that. I think that's from like the mollock thing, that's what's going on with Peter at the moment, right? Peter's been pushing mollock for a long time and only now has he received the first check to actually, whoa, you go, right? Yeah, that happened. And I think that's really important, right? I think like the people that are coordinating these dows and the bureaucracy we go into these systems, you know, there needs to be financial backing behind them because otherwise things won't happen. You know, and I think right now, dows don't seem to be able enough to get it wrong. Great, that brings up the interesting question of like, are we actually changing the way that our organizations work? Like, people still need to be paid for the work of even creating or coordinating a dow. And we have this like, a contrarian view, there's no leaders in dows when there are fundamental leaders and they should also be compensated. But then also we have the ability to capture value in different ways than traditional profit structures, right? So now we also have the opportunity to redesign the incentives, which is really nice because we get to create a new way for people to be rewarded and to capture more for their labor use. Well, then why do we call it dow? I mean, that's why I think the house doesn't- Peter just went high. I just think that we are using a wrong name and by calling it dow, then we're gonna have a person that is gonna be leading the efforts. It's not really decentralized. I mean, the leader can change every second. Yeah, someone has to do something. And that's all she's saying here. The aim of it is to have a very, a lot more autonomous from now on. I wouldn't say it's wrong. What did you say he did? I think it's wrong. Sorry? The difference between leadership and control. That's how you can have a leadership as informed. That's a great point. I'm telling you, I'm going to show you what we're gonna come to. And I wouldn't say it's wrong, but if I agree, dow is a term that's much broader than what each specific implementation indicates. Each implementation is distinct sort of and the community that forms and the culture that forms around each implementation, you could describe each as either a company or a co-op or some sort of, right? Dow, though, is kind of- It's kind of this blanket. Yeah, but it's called decentralized, right? Yeah, no, I agree. This is decentralized and autonomous. The same thing. Sorry? If you want to bring it between, then talking about your problem is, he's not making sense to you. Yeah, there is. That's exactly what I'm saying, that we're using the wrong naming convention. That's exactly what I'm saying. And the deal, I mean, as you want to share with the media, it's just that it's not discussed. Rachel, man, if you want to speak, okay? Let's make this coordinated. We're not gonna- Okay. I want to say decentralization, and I think sometimes it's a group in one thing. You know, you can have decentralized financing models and also have some type of leadership. You can have decentralization of leadership but actual decentralization of funding. So I think it's a bit of a mystery, like to say, if there is leadership, it's not decentralized because we see the same thing on layer one, right? Like, you're gonna have decentralized notes or you can still have decentralization because it's all on AWS or something like that. So I think, you know, if you do say that, it'd be a little more nuanced but I see where you're coming from. Yeah, wait, wait, wait, I saw one right in the middle. Sorry, I see it too. Oh yeah, I see the letters D and A have more to do with the medium that's floating between them. Yeah, that's how it works. I would also add that, like, leader doesn't imply that the leader has more decision-making power as much as it is who is executing. Like, who is taking out the trash? Does it mean they're the ones deciding where the trash is going? I think also we don't have to, like, compact everything into a DAO, right? We don't need to say that, like, a participatory or a horizontal or collaborative organization has to be a DAO. There's value in these potentially separately. And also, I think we have to, to your point, we also need to acknowledge that, like, back-end labor happens to, like, organize and socialize and create the communications around how you implement a DAO or a horizontal organization. We want to honor that labor fiber we want to do it. Last one. I think we have a broader problem at hand which ties, which you're linking to it is, like, we are open-source based, right? So there are people here that are contributing with work, which we cannot remunerate based on the work produced kind of, right? Because they can't cooperate. So we have to come up. We fucking have to come up with a way to reward people who are contributing to the common good. And I think that, you know, if we do it for ourselves, then it might be easier to come to other people and let them know we figured it out for ourselves. Because, you know, we already hear people talking about licensing, coding on these young, you know, so. So going to that house is doing the raid guilt. Tell us. New DAO. We know just to experiment on that exact thing. If you want to try to work together and work on how we can do that right now. What's the name of that? Raid Raid Guilt. Raid Guilt, Raid Guilt. I think, I think I need to- Don't call it that. I need to call it the Guilt Guilt. Yeah, I think we still have one more group. So this discussion is so amazing. Will it be so cool if people have other thoughts that they want to contribute? Please put it in the hack, MD, and we can continue this discussion. But that's really awesome. Thank you, everybody, for participating. But we still have one more group and I want to give them the opportunity to say all their things. So why DAOs? I mean, this is like, this is great that we're ending on number one because it's basically like what the fuck you're talking about. Thank you. So come on up, announce yourself. And then before we get back to our questions. This guy's David, he could call me dog. I like dog more. Dog. I just want to keep my, I think he's a good dog. So yeah, we've been mandering between three different kind of things about the state of the DAOs right now. So we discussed a lot about all of DAOs, about the right DAOs, Roja DAOs, all those. We also talked a lot about the old failures of the DAOs and also talked about what DAOs could do if we just envision this great future where we don't have all this shit, we only have the DAOs and they do what we want, even though we don't know what we want. What I'm saying is it was a very difficult discussion to put into key points, so I'll just give you what we have. So first key point, we had a consensus that offline and online communities really require deep relationships and most often trust as well. And we weren't really sure if it is possible to just muddle the trust away and just find a mechanism that we can just not have to trust. So it's definitely something that any discussion about DAOs will be getting back into. We also found several use cases. You can find them in a heck of me, I'll just read some of them. So one of the biggest use cases we had was that DAOs allow, and that's a claim, DAOs allow sidesteping the current structures that force organizations, if you just ignore DAOs as a structure into this binary decision. Are we doing this for profit? Are we doing this not for profit? So our claim is we can use DAOs to kind of enable the spectrum in between these two, and like somebody from the middle said a few minutes ago there, we can also really decide whether we want to have the spectrum more on the funding side, more on the governance side. We want to do sample as both. We want to have this fluent. And another claim that we make is that DAOs, because they are kind of shared software stack, enable fluency and all of that. And this is what we believe is one of the key points for anyone who's investigating now is that this fluency in the structures is one of the key sort of big selling points that we're all somehow subconsciously hoping for. What else do we have here? Oh yeah, one of the typical use cases is governance of decentralized projects using DAOs. You all know a few projects that simply are DAOs and they self organize and I guess they don't give a rat's ass about legal implications because why would you? I'm with them. I'm with them. What else we have here? Yeah, obviously a new means to capture value and enable value creation with less social and legal friction. I'm not really sure if this is the case in all cases. That's why we're actually having this workshop, I guess, to just enable the design patterns that will make it easier for future generations of conscious people to design DAOs just in a better way. And a big claim we had, accessibility is still not very equally distributed. I mean, there are populations that are not online and there are populations that do not know that you can actually have an organization on the internet. There are people who are unaware that forums exist. That's a problem that is just going to, in my opinion, personal, it can solve itself with time with the development of the digital space in general. And one claim that we had as well is that DAOs provide a digital interface to a social process that often or in the past was hidden. So, for instance, it was this example of the young DAO or if we just imagine we have a more advanced version of that, which is actually a super pack, you could kind of see what's going on in a social system that you normally wouldn't even be able to see, you wouldn't be able to see results, outcomes of that system. But now you can just go online or in the future you could go online and just check what's going on, who's voting, or maybe if you cannot attribute individual identities to individual votes, you can still see what's going on without having to ask your immediate surrounding social network. So maybe we can actually gain some sort of super transparency that is not really something that humans have had in the past. And anything to add, guys and gals? Oh, no, the gals want to vote, I guess that's it mostly. I think, do we have some time for open discussion? Yeah, anybody have any other questions? Hello. Why are we all here? Why DAOs for you guys? DAOs, DAOs, DAOs. Some people are all about new, I think governance is boring. What I care about is new kinds of money, which is what I change a lot of you to do. Tokens are great, but lots more tokens. Governments sucks. Solve more problems, that's for me. So for me, what I announced is that you can continue around a shared mission that if you were a company with shareholders or non-profits, it would be very hard to contribute. And because I come from an insurance background, and insurance as it is sucks, because it's shareholder value maximizing. Whereas traditionally it's always been about helping the community as a whole and avoiding their controls. But that structure is very new thing for it to scale up and repeat with shareholder maximizing the success. So it's whether or not it can work, but it's exploring a new way to push a mission that benefits the society as a whole versus one person or one entity. I think that also to discuss the local community example, I believe that DAOs can be a nice setup, even if you have trust and you have that knowledge between people and common goal, like to create mechanics where you can coordinate decisions and also make it from people from outside the bubble if this is a more general problem. I'd like to second one, which is basically, when you have a DAO, it's really about making trust to the next DAO. It's not only because blockchain giving us cryptocurrencies where we have a trustless monetary system, but now we can delegate the trust. We can see change in places where traditionally we're not some change, like for example, my personal interest is in renewable energy. I'm very frustrated that I don't believe that the large corporations and the governments will work together to transition us for 100%. So what if we have a DAO that basically collects funds to give out loans for people who actually want to install panels and we don't compromise that, it's free from corruption, it's free from manipulation, shared vision. Basically the money goes to where it is. Yeah, I thought that the big questions they'd like for me is seeing that this might be sort of, I don't know what to say, but it's kind of reinventing the wheel in some respects and obviously we're quite just from someone in over who you have worked with already in organisations where they do have these mechanisms already. I think it's cool for us to play with it and that was the point we came to, that it's kind of put to experiment and learn the lingo and for me it's always been great in doing that. And then when I go to an organisation and do the same thing, it's like, oh yeah, they're just doing that in a digital form. I just kind of wonder the advantages. So for some who are coming from the digital space, it gives them more exposure to these processes. And I think for those who aren't already involved in that process and can do that in a community project say they'll have their own personal experience, they'll just feel like they're part of the process. And if these digital tools can work hours, they can give a good visibility of where a vote goes and say, oh, I voted on that and then now I have the fountain built in my community or something, that's the positive side to it. So it's, I'm sort of torn to say, like there will be an element of reinvention in the world to get familiar with it a bit, but hopefully there is something that we'll need to add into it that is saying, here is the potential to be a better participant in this. I think it's there, but I'm just building it. Yeah, I think so. I love that. I think we're going to cut it right there. That was a great inspirational way to end that. So thank you so much. We are already, I'm ready to move on over. Thank you so much for spending this much time with us. Please add any thoughts that happened to you. Even I would be taking this and putting something out into the community. So also stay tuned. This is our cutter. But again, thank you guys so much for your great share. Thank you.