 Hey, Michael, you're muted. Yeah, there we go. Hello, we were just talking about the big quilt. And what it does and all of that. Sorry, do you know anything about the big quilt. I saw it mentioned in the hack and D for yesterday's meeting. Oh, cool. There you go. See, word gets out in mysterious ways. So a couple Sundays ago, I had a call with a new acquaintance, a guy named Pat Scannell, who happens to be on a mailing list. I'm on with a bunch of telecom geeks. And I liked what he was saying. I just liked his comments a lot. They were very thoughtful. He's going very deep on stuff. So I said, Hey, let's just chat. So a couple Sundays ago when I'm in Fresno, we have this chat that just turns into this crazy good conversation that brings up a bunch of old thoughts I had, and congeals into this idea that I'm calling the big quilt. First I was calling it weaving the world. But the whole idea is to have some to bring out of OGM to create a show, because we're already doing a bunch of zoom calls and recording them and posting them to YouTube. They just don't really have any framing around them other than, Hey, here's a sequence of our calls. We could actually have sort of intentional meetings with people and do stuff which on the surface looks like a show. And then under the hood does OGM me stuff with everything, including making the artifacts easier to find archiving them and then deconstructing or analyzing them, taking the different people's thinking and constructing models with them. You know, connecting them to one another, weaving this, this quilt basically the patchwork quilt analogy says that each of these is a beautiful on its own. I mean, every patch in the patchwork quilt has sort of local local aesthetics. But then how do we weave them into each other so part of the OGM anything we would do is work the edges and figure out that, you know, donut economics is see it smells different from plan D but really they overlap in these kinds of ways and, and then open up those explorations and then connect that out to education connect that to journalism connect that to science to to elections to whatever over time and invite others to create their own channels doing the same thing in the same way. And in the process begin to feed the commons all the time in the generative commons agreement fashion which is why I think this is interesting here as well. We would process prototype new ways of making a living in this whole process because we would fund, we would, we would part of what I would go out and solicit funds for is to fuel people who are playing roles in this ecosystem to to to, you know, to do the different kinds of new roles that we're envisioning, whether it's Pete's context weavers or my story threaders or somebody else's whatever. What do those look like as possible career paths for people. And how does this new economy work so that people are making a living and the commons is being nourished. And we get some attention for it being a public set of events that wind up being more interesting as you unpack them or as you pull apart the layers of the quilt in some sense. I'm liking the quilt analogy a lot because it's female, typically traditionally a female art that's not durable so we don't have a lot of quotes around but it's what you know textiles are some of the earliest technologies period. They just didn't survive. It's a nourishing warm comforting thing it's a team project when you do a quilting be. It's war it's about warmth and safety and the, the weaving of it is very connective and Mark on twine has long loved the metaphor of the loom and weaving. I like it to I think of the brain is my modern loom for information for what we know. So a little subhead subtitle could be weaving what we know, or something like that. So I'm doing an artifact that I'm excited about doing partly because it takes a bunch of stuff we're already doing, and really kind of focus it focuses it sharpens it makes it more public, and maybe really importantly makes it easier for me to pitch to wealthy people as how how might I back this ogm thing you've got. I was like hey there's a good idea we're trying to feed the comments and figure some stuff out, and I want to fund some fellows. And as Pete pointed out the fellowship thing is not not easier that attractive projects that build this new environment are attractive. At least, I think they are. All feedback welcome. So I guess my, my question on the last part is, what, what is the, what is the activity. What is what is the difference in. What is the difference in fundability and in ogm and the big quilt. I'm just, just a little more on that just on like business model and maybe maybe by analogy think of the big quilt as Sesame Street, or something where it's a show for public benefit. So I think that, but under the hood, it's actually a construction project to build out how we think together in the future and how we work together in the future. Ooh, I like that better than what I was saying before. And so, and so there's a piece of this which is like a donation to pbs but there's a piece of this which is like a donation to the future. I want to say the highway system but that sounds lousy it's not just infrastructure. There's a bunch of other things. And I think that that that project I think, I think, I think there's a whole bunch, part of the pitch I think is that there's a whole bunch of people and groups that are trying to figure out what the next economy and social system looks like is it sociocracy holocracy plan B donuts triple bottom line theory you like all of these, every one of them, some of them have more overweening ambitions. Deep adaptation, you know, Jim bandel. There's just like model after model after model model. And some of them are more platform oriented is one called the disco co op, which is really really interesting. There's a bunch of others. So I think part of the pilgrimage here part of the exploration to find the patches to weave into the quilt is to go to these people who've got important bodies of work and figure out how to bring their work into the larger picture, in some sense. I just combined two threads I was I was on one thread and I jumped off to a different one. There's a bunch of people who who've got great ideas about how this how this is happening, we who are going in all different kinds of directions, and a piece of what we kind of need is to figure out. I think you I think you've heard me say, one of the questions in the back of my head is what are the next two platforms. Right. What is the social platform and what is the organizational platform. And those things don't need to be separate they may start sort of lead together with each other. And I think that that's one of the background questions for the big quilt. It's like, and I also like the big quilt because it's not an overweening promise like weaving the world is like oh right you're going to do what. The big quilt is like the think of this like as the AIDS quilt for information. Right. This is a communally, communally created set of stories that we've together into to try to tell a bigger story. A bigger story about social change about things we need to get done. So the AIDS quote metaphor I think is nice as well in that way. Right, because the idea of bringing all the people who had been weaving pieces of the AIDS quote together onto the mall in Washington and laying them all out end to end so people could see the scale of impact of AIDS was gigantic and memorable. And here we're talking about a virtual quilt. So that opens up, you know, he prefers natural metaphors that that contain kind of the explosive growth or organic contagious nature of what we think we're doing. And I agree. But to me, we can kind of hack the system of it by saying, all of that's interesting but this is a virtual quilt and therefore it could be replicated it doesn't have to have exactly match, you know matching end parts it's going to have layers and, and other kinds of things. And, and then, Leif and Hank had mentioned a Danish artist named Sarah verby, who is a textile artist who did a collective project of weaving a forest. And she invited people in and had set up the project so that you could sort of sit down and pick a piece of it, and they were weaving seeds together into fabric. And then put it into into into an image that sort of made kind of a forest, I'll put a link in the chat in a second. But that's really interesting metaphorically also because if you sort of combine a quilt with a seed bomb, and think that the quilt could contain seeds and they sprout and grow and do things, then you're in a different sort of space about what the metaphor is holding and what its potential is and all of that so I like that image as well. There's stuff like that. And, and a piece of this is also an attempt to enact or live in the generative commons about piece of this is like, we're not this is not. I watched a documentary about Sesame Street called Street gang, just a couple weeks ago. It's a really good documentary. It's a good part because in 1998 a friend of mine took me out when I went off on my own a friend of mine took me out to lunch and told me the story. Have you heard me tell the stories of Sesame Street. Okay, so the way he told me the story and this sort of meshes with the documentary but not perfectly. He said Jim Henson was basically a puppeteer who was busking on the streets of San Francisco showing up at puppet shows and on public TV and doing and had this character called Kermit the Frog, who I think he'd invented. And he runs into a guy named Lloyd Morissette. And Lloyd Morissette and Joan Gantz, Joan Gantz Cooney leader. They, those two people say hey you're a good puppeteer, we could build something around you. And they build Sesame Street, the Muppets Children's Theatre Workshop, this gigantic complex of stuff that becomes that really changes the nature of educational TV for kids, right totally changes this nature. One of the low points of the documentary is that one of their hacks of the system was to use all this technology that was working well in advertising to teach kids. So they had a lot of attention, all of that they in fact there's a small detail that you see in the documentary which is they invented the thing they called the distractor, which is, they had a TV with a TV with a slide show that was in the corner of the room where they were testing stuff. And if the kids lost the tension on their prototypes of Sesame Street and started watching the distractor, they knew that that show that piece of the show wasn't going to work. So it was sort of advertising and attention hacking, which I don't really want to do. I want to do passion hacking I want to be like, this is actually trying to fix the world. And if we help do this together, we might actually be getting somewhere one small sort of bite at a time. I just want to make the point, they didn't try to change the kids behavior, you know in terms of that advertising hack it wasn't about changing the behavior, it was about changing their behavior. So to me that's a positive thing. Yeah. And they, and they Sesame Street is strangely the show, sort of like blues clues, the show that's not just good for kids it's also sort of good for adults to watch you can kind of sit there and watch along because there's a lot of stuff happening that that's kind of funny for adults or, or or whatever and other kinds of ways anyway there's a whole bunch of details about Sesame Street, but since 1998 I've been looking for my Lloyd Morris set unsuccessfully. I have a zillion ideas in my head. I just wanted to find somebody who wanted to like operationalize them and like say yeah that sounds great let's go build this. And just haven't really gotten there. And that's just a side story here, but that idea plus I sat down next to Mitch Ratcliffe at a conference 25 years ago. And I guess early early early internet days and we both started talking about people we admired. And we were going to start a pilgrimage we were going to say let's just do a show of some sort. Let's do a series of blog posts. I don't remember what medium we were thinking about, because he was a tech writer. Let's just go visit these people let's make a pilgrimage to the people we admire, right about them and bring that into the same stream. And we, we actually never did that we both got busy and completely different ways. But I loved that idea of visiting people who are thinking interesting things or communities that are doing interesting work. One thing I didn't say here yet is that we would prefer to visit, not the white guy led communities but everybody else first. Let's let's go, let's go figure out what spiritual communities are doing what communities of color are doing how you know how how the piece parts look from from their side. And then let's weave that back as I tried to do in my brain but I'm in a little solo effort, we've got back into the general perspective of what we see and how things work. My brain is sourdough starter for this. Again mixing metaphors because sourdough started doesn't grow well with quilts. But the idea being hey everybody else who's doing stuff like this bring your body of work in and weave it towards what the rest of us are trying to do. And this whole intention and then this morning I read Axios. I don't know if you guys get Axios the new service. So the Axios has a piece that I read yesterday and they reprinted it today about how Zuckerberg is taking Facebook into the into the metaverse. Right so Neil Stevenson metaverse. And this is like extended reality enhanced reality extreme reality whatever are all those kinds of things, but then I read in the middle of the piece, which I'm going to repost to our channels. The principles of the metaverse are all about interoperability between across platforms and there's like the principles of the metaverse are not things that are fit comfortably with with what Facebook is today. And they're principles that fit really nicely with what we're talking about. And I was like if those principles hold we should have a voice at the table for this emergent metaverse. So a piece of our show could easily be and we've got friends who are doing lots of stuff in AR XR whatever a piece of our show could easily be XR explorations into these data sets and these ideas faces in these communities. And that would fit very nicely, and a piece of what we would do there is how does XR manifestation of something fit with an outliner like Rome, or a tool like the brain or like whatever, how these things actually fit together and work together. And that gets me excited. And I think I can pitch that and raise some funds for that. And if you don't think so say so now. No, I just, I, I, I think that that sounds pitchable, but not in a way to me. There's not much in a way that OGM doesn't. I guess it's a little bit. I mean they're, they're, they're probably fewer funders who would be more likely to go for. I mean, so OGM is is bigger and bigger. And, you know, there are a lot of different kinds of funders who might want to support that. And I think that very quilt is a more specific vision that would be more attractive to certain funders, maybe not as broadly but more intensely among, you know, I mean it's like, Oh, yeah, that's a, that's a this. Whereas, you know, somebody else might say, Oh, it's a show that's sort of advancing these concepts. Yeah, I don't do that. There are people for whom it would cross it off the list, right, that's probably more people who would. Yeah, who would really identify with it. So I mean I think I think it's good. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a more precise. It's a more concrete. It's a more it's a more concrete thing and I should add that the the the radar screen that the big quilt is drawing on is open global line, meaning the thesis of open global line about open mindedness and the need to bridge the virtual gap and the need to see what we all know together and all of that. So the open goal mind is kind of where we're aiming. And the people we would visit would be people whose work in the world is creating some solutions to some part of that puzzle. So GM winds up being the the the big screen at the end of the end of the hall or the overarching thesis or something like that. And, and yeah, so I could, I could kind of pitch this as a show think next generation Sesame Street of the metaverse I can hear that coming out of my mouth and me going. I can also pitch this to people who want to build the infrastructure that we see and shoot it from below ground, basically shoot a pitch that says for the muggles, looking up from above for looking down from from the normal surface of daily life. This kind of looks like a show, but really we're busy building the infrastructure that's needed for these new kinds of models to stand up and we're prototyping it with other people we're connecting into communities that are already using you know, blockchain alternatives to do information whatever in etc etc so I could I could totally switch perspectives on it. That makes a lot of sense. So, do you have a business model in mind in terms of. So I think my framing for pitching funders is the same as it was before which is, which is I need, I need to find us or buy us a year or two of runway, where we figure out what the various business models are and prototype some of the business models with the initial funding, and the initial funding sets us up to produce a show, and then to fund projects that take bites out of the infrastructure we need and the other stuff that's happening below ground. And we can, we can frame those up we can we can make a pretty dashboard that says here's what the projects are here's what they're okay ours are. Here's how they're hitting their numbers here's who they're supporting, and all of that that can be made really quite visible under the project. And then, here are some, and, as I was saying in the initial pitch I had for a gym, and here's an investment pool where if we have more slack and more funds than the projects we have on deck we can actually invest some money and some of the organizations that are building out some piece of this of this joint comments and do some co funding through the ecosystem. So I think like that. Yeah, I mean that back to me is where, as an investor, I get. Hmm. You know, am I. Well you're busy investing in the hopefully the next socio technical platform. Right. With with a sense that I am someone's graphically supporting or that I am buying a first mover, not not getting to own a piece of but you, I think, I think we have to agree that the next platform only works if it's collectively owned and and created. But if it's if it's really actually very active and if there's a lot of value moving through it everybody who plays makes makes a good living. And so you'd get to build out the first pieces of the platform that get that get paid for as a service, you know as SAS, you know metaverse the mass basically metaverse as a service. Just saying that jokingly but but if you're a first mover into this environment, you get to figure out what business services so the part I forgot to say in this last little riff is that a piece of what I also think we're funding is standing up some for benefit ventures that live inside of this ecosystem that help a new series of people. A new series of job titles emerge as as as skills that organizations and neighborhoods and communities need. Who are context weavers map whispers story threaders, what have you, and that those people ought to be paid. Those people in fact are making a living by helping us build this whole thing, and a piece of what we're doing is setting up an ecosystem or an economy for them, so that they're not just. Hey, I put up a website on Wix and good luck finding me. I still end up feeling like I don't have a handle on on on a general either business proposition or or completely benevolent donation. And I know I know you're trying to straddle those things in a way. I'm trying to fund the prototyping of business models that would then spin out as for benefit businesses doing those things, which would need platforms and you know so forth and I think that's one of the opportunities for for other companies owned by the entity that they would be they would be or be collectives or dows they would own themselves. We would stand them up we would prototype them and say, here's what this thing looks like. And then once they sort of became an organization they could sort of bubble up collect up and become an org of whatever model it turns out at that time, makes the most sense for the kind of work that we're all doing. And I agree with your questions and your skepticism right now because this is like a frickin complex thing still. Yeah, I mean I just, I, you know, I've been in enough like pitch meetings and, and, and, you know, it's like, there are different angles to come at things from. And there's you know what's in it for. For you the donor investor. What's in it for the world what's in it for a combination of you and the world what's in it for you know I mean just all different things and, and I'm just like worried about it being too. You know, I just, you know, the, you know, we're not a nonprofit or a for profit and we're a collective and we're going to stand up for profits that are like benefit, you know it's like, it doesn't it doesn't it's not like it sounds bad. It's unclear to me. I mean just as a, as a, you know, what if I say it sounds a little a little too give us money and we're not sure what's going to happen exactly but it's going to be toward this end. Yeah, might or might not be, you know, might or might not make you make money for you or the people in this or, you know, or end up with IP that was valuable and used by other. It just, it just sounds. Well the IP created needs to be shared so that everybody gets the benefit from it. Everybody meaning the whole world or everybody in this entity and everybody meaning the whole world. Yeah, okay. Yeah, everybody meaning the whole world. So this is all, I'm assuming this is all powered, sort of powered by or informed by OGM pledging to the generative Commons agreement. Like that's on the footer of every of every page of the website, for example, right, so that so that all these efforts are meant to sort of stand up kind of the next economy and I just like to mix more metaphors. I think what somebody might be funding is the star nursery for the next ecosystem, because the next ecosystem is going to be really varied. It's just, everybody's not going to want to adopt the same business model. It's not that everybody's going to adopt holocracy and work on glass frogs. That ain't happening. And if that happened to probably be a bad thing. It would be a multiplicity of entities using a multiplicity of business models, and if we can align them if we can collimate them. If we can collect them up so that they're working more or less in harmony toward a generative Commons in whatever guys and whatever business model they're coming in with. If they're still contributing to the generative Commons, and if they're prototyping the business models that we're going to need because we're running out of full time employment as far as I as far as I can tell, as far as they can to eliminate full time employment and industry after industry and it's it's basically like retail. Hardly anybody is full time employed in retail everybody's working out many people. I mean Amazon warehouse workers are working way long, but most retail stores are trying to give their people shifts under 30 hours so they don't have to pay benefits. And so you get more employees make sure nobody's scheduled over 30 hours and suddenly you don't have a benefits problem. That's horrifying, because none of those are actually jobs where you can make a living, including the fact there that they're, you know, the wages are super low and so forth. So, and then automation is showing up and knocking out job after job and I think, I think a huge, huge, an important piece of our inquiry is what is the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in that in our future ecosystem. And I think a lovely quest there is, what does it mean to become a cyborg worker. How you know, or a centaur worker there's a couple names for this but basically, my brain is kind of like a cyborg extension of me. I'm all I already see myself as half cyborg worker, because I've externalized a set of what I know and what I care about in a way that's useful when I step away, not that useful because it's stuck inside of this damn brain tool. But some people know how to how to harness it without me. Hopefully through this whole project, it gets vastly more useful alongside everybody else's thinking and working toward, you know, weaving this together. But, but, but a piece of that inquiry is we visit people who are busy exploring technology as human extension instead of human replacement, you know, enhance or replace is kind of the phrase that that April and I both use. Oh, sorry, augment or replace that that's the moral choice that companies have. And right now, they're doing a lot of replace a lot of replace. And nobody know that there's like a sort of Damocles hanging over every worker, kind of in the world, slowly, because they don't know when their particular set of job set of skills is going to be automated. It's no longer just robots. It's white collar work left right and center because because GPT three can now write pros, as well as your average writer. And I'm, and this leads down a bunch of side conversations like, I don't believe that that artificial general intelligence that some software entity that thinks like us and is logical and all different things, sort of like us is going to show up. And I think that task after task is going to going to get eaten away. I think that on a on a task level. It's really easy to outperform humans. There there are x-ray reading applications now algorithms that do better than x-ray technicians that finding tumors and anomalies and x-rays, and they don't get tired, and they perform better over time, and they don't need retirement funding. It's not something like reading an x-ray, or you can probably think of a bunch of other examples where there are legal implications for getting it wrong. Algorithms that perform better are going to win that race, I don't think it's inevitable, and I don't need to eliminate my entire job I just need to take out 30% of what I do that's really valuable. And my job is in jeopardy. I'm sorry to take a long time there, but I think one of the explorations of open global mind and the new economy is how does that play out and how do we make it play out well for humans. Right. Meanwhile, there's a bunch of other conversations and explorations about, does that mean everybody needs a basic income and how does that work and does that kill incentives or make incentives and who's had experiments and basic income. If basic income is a band-aid or a soft quilt to land on as we automate away work, how's that playing out. And then we use our shared infrastructure to say, here's open, here's big juicy open questions. Right, here are the big questions in our inquiry right now we're trying to figure this out, this out, this out, this out. And the way we schedule whom to visit next is they're chewing on one of these big questions and they're, you know, etc. All of which makes me excited because I can see how the agenda, the okay ours, what we're funding and all that could be openly visible and available so somebody coming in could say oh, here's here's a tribe, a hive of people honoring diversity, including the confusing massive diverse business models, diverse points of view about how this thing works, all of that honoring the diversity, yet working together toward solving for how do we fix the civilization level problems. And I love that. I love that as a purpose and sort of general organizing structure that makes sense to me. Yeah, I mean, I, I'd watch the show. I mean, I'm not, I'm not like, sure. And, and, like I say, I'm almost feel like if you went to pitch the show to people who, you know, underwrite PBS shows, or you know, like, whatever, you know it's like that. It's, you know, a corporation for, you know, public broadcasting. Well, I mean, I was trying to think of a, you know, as you were saying, sort of the grownups television workshop, you know, right. This, this is an attractive concept. And, and I only get not stop just, you know, slightly confused, just and skeptical comes to, and it's going to overarch all this stuff that's going to happen that, you know, we're going to like stand up support. But, you know, there are so many different. As we, as we would say, and, you know, graph mapping terms, there are so many different edges between these nodes like, you know, and things moving in different directions that I start to go. This is a little bit. You know, megalomaniac about, you know, about what it's trying to be underneath the show, you know, the show got it cool. Concepts just like what what is it. And I mean, you know, it's the same question I sometimes like asked about OGM, because I mean, I feel like what you're sort of saying about the show is new but what's underneath it is just very OGM. Yeah, this is this is meant to manifest OGM. Right. In a way that's more tractable more palpable more concrete, more actionable, maybe more fundable. Yes. Well, but I mean I guess I almost feel like the OGM problem. Still exist the fundability of this is about this it's about the show and the the problems with totally gung ho about OGM as more than a general idea as more than a congregation of like minded people is how OGM works and this, if you think of the big quilt as one like fundable OGM project. Okay. You know, and still still have the problem. And a problem is a harsh harsh term but still have the like lack of clarity on like, you know, how it all works and where the money and ownership and and and roles are. The next thing about a show is, you know, show takes like, okay, they're going to be these, you know, these production costs and these transportation costs and these like, you know, the takes this many people reasonably to do that thing because people have done it before. Great. And yeah, so I guess it's, you know, just that just that I'm not I'm not trying to rain on the parade of the show at all. I don't feel like you are I think you're asking really great questions. Yeah, I appreciate them a lot. And I'm busy trying to explain it in a way that might make sense to others as we go. And so I think we're making it better so thank you. It does feel to me like like the big quilt is an OGM production, and that OGM is still it's still, you know, at this point is sort of sheltered under a nonprofit so it's technically kind of acting like a nonprofit. The funding I'm trying to attract up front is grant funding for that nonprofit. So for a year or so OGM would act as a nonprofit to set this up. And it would prototype a bunch of things which then could spin out. And part of part of what I think, and we come back a bit to the Lyonsburg conversation about steward ownership and whether that's the right way to do it. But one of the compelling reasons why Jordan loves steward ownership is that once you have that it creates this stable platform from which you can it's a springboard you can launch a bunch of other things that can I'm just just for maybe this will help my understanding let's just talk about Lyonsburg for a second and what besides OGM Lyonsburg is doing and what kind of entities it's already. Yeah, so I don't so I don't know the I don't know the wide variety of entities in Lyonsburg, well till a to call it that. Or from, you know, from the top of their mass but one big one is OFC the open, what are they called the open future coalition that's it. So, so the open future coalition and we just got a briefing from Katie, Caitlin Arshambo Katie. We just got a briefing from them they're building out a platform that does a piece of this that is trying to help. Basically, that is trying to help entities organize up around projects that have. I'm totally going to butcher what I saw because I'm not remembering it very vividly right now, but basically to help make visible and measurable the actions of people trying to build out all these different nonprofits and for benefit social impact projects. So they're busy designing a platform they're they're trying to sort of be late binding or or whatever in in what what actual software is inside the design, but they're pretty far down that down that path. And it could be that a piece of our activity uses their platform to do this work and to measure it and to put sort of dashboards up that's possible. All right, then. And so Jordan has been kind of recruiting and casting a pretty broad net. I think there's some projects in Africa he's supporting that are doing kind of stuff on the ground, whether it's education or supporting small workers I don't know. And I've forgotten who I think this is sort of sort of a question for Jordan, he's become kind of a collector of ventures like us. He's into this new ecosystem, and partly what he's favoring is he's trying to pick little ventures that are certainly ethically or morally aligned with Lyonsburg and its goals, but are also building out different parts of this ecosystem. And one of the reasons he likes OGM is that we appear to be focused on a bunch of different moving parts that matter a lot to the future of this ecosystem. So, but in terms of whether the entities, I'm also I'm looking at the lines were excited to become a co creator blurb, which I've looked at ways back but just just to add complexity. My dear friend John Borthwick and I had a couple of great conversations he should be coming back from vacation shortly, but he asked the question is OGM a doll. Right. Exactly. And I'm like, that's a really good question. And I don't know. And does it can a doll coexist or can a doll be the structure for a stew or don't enterprise don't know I don't know if those things are mutually exclusive or compatible I have actually no good idea. But for me that's a really interesting question to hold up several different compelling future models and say, Hey, do they work together do they not do they feed the commons how do they how do these things operate I think that's a great set of questions to start asking. Yeah, we can put a couple links to Lyonsburg. Why, why couldn't they work together. The whole idea of a Dow is within their own organization they do what they want but they're still going to make agreements with other dows. Anyway, I was saying it, I think it was perfect. Okay, I think so. I have no reason to think not but I've been surprised before with assumptions I make like that where it turns out that there's some kind of a poison pill aspect to something that doesn't there's incompatible with some other founding premise of some other piece of work or something like that. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So, so, so, so Lyonsburg AEC Linesburg elevator lines for the legacy real estate. Yes, they seem to be building out several several different moving parts. And they so so Jordan comes out of construction. Yeah. And there were several construction companies rock force construction and so could construction that I think is grandfather founded. coming from. And it's interesting because the reason I'm liking the quilt analogy a lot is that the day after it showed up for me, I was in the Lion's Burg, the Jordan run call for Yannick Silver's one degree network in which we broke up into a workshop. It was like a to our session where he was trying to get everybody into projects to agree to stuff, which I think was pretty rough. It was sort of bumpy. But when we came back and convened, the facilitator asked, so like, how do we explain this thing simply enough to a five-year-old? And I offered up. It's like we're weaving a quilt together. And that's just like stock. That everybody was like, sounds great. And partly it may have stuck because it was low hanging fruit. It was easy to say, okay, good. But I think partly it sticks because quilt is kind of understandable. And everything else I said to try to explain what this venture is is much less understandable. And that's bad because a good idea should be pretty crystalline. But the quilt is just this nice, soft, gentle, central point. And I'm really aware that a lot of the communities I've helped create attract white guys. And I want an analogy that isn't the white guy analogy as a starting point. I want something that isn't, like, we're going to weave the brain knowledge of the world into the Uber knowledge management system. I'm like, bullshit. Right? I'm trying hard to steer toward something that may not be comfortable for people like me, which is great. Without cultural appropriation, without anything else, but sort of creating a place that's welcoming to really different people. Because despite the Kevin Jones kerfluffle and all of that kind of stuff, I'm aware that his anger is well-rooted and well-placed. His forms of expression on that anger don't work very well for me and actually aren't very productive for me. But we absolutely need to start not by serving us, but by serving someone not like us. So yes, I'm totally on board for that and trying to figure out how to make this work. And I think that there's lots of really interesting substories that's been out of this. And I'm really interested in this becoming, I was saying to Stacy, just as you came in, I think, that what if this is a completely different I Heart Radio kind of from the surface where I Heart Radio is a podcast aggregator. They're totally like the rebirth of commercial radio. They're a modern radio station and I don't like them. But what if we're a collection of storytellers? Pardon? They're a channel. Exactly. No, no. Clear channel. Oh, clear channel. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The entity that owns them. Oh, that's right. They're not liking. Yeah, exactly. Speaking of not liking. They're the warm and fuzzy face of Clear Channel. Yeah, exactly. Because they've got a heart in their logo. Isn't that cool? A couple of friends of mine used to work for them. Okay. So what if we're like an ethical, interesting, distributed, future oriented replacement for those kinds of things where we can become a collection place for lots of different storytellers who are weaving their narratives together into a durable fabric that is more useful than mere video records of calls, which is what we've got now from everybody, right? Right now it's pretty easy to go back and visit everybody's podcast episodes or vlog episodes and listen to them. And that's kind of a problem because I don't have the hour and a half to listen to every one of Daniel Schmucktenberger's interviews. And he has very little long form stuff out there. It's all, hey, you get to slog through this whole thing. And I could really use sort of collective intelligence on this to figure out, okay, great. So where do I, what are the pieces I want to listen to? And how do they fit the larger puzzle? Well, how do they fit into the big quilt? So, and this is, I don't know if this comes with a little thing here sometimes, but so like, there's no shortage of people out there who are who are endeavoring to do that kind of thing in different ways and is. And separately trying to attract attention and audience and some kind of revenue model. Sure. And often separately trying to like, figure out ways to work with each other. That's great. If we can solve all those problems for them somehow. Yeah, but I guess I hear, I mean, my frustration is like, you can solve all those problems for them somehow. Like, you know, OGM, you, we, all of us, know better than the people who've been striving to do this and, and, you know, have succeeded in certain ways and not in others. And, and it's, it's where I worry about like the ability to attract them without a clear sense that, that we are not competing with them, but we are like looking like, I mean, Lion's Bird. Lion's Bird, it seems pretty clear is, you know, Lion's Bird Foundation is looking to support people who are doing good things. If you're doing something cool, come to us and, you know, we'll give you money and connect you maybe with other people that we're working with. We want to see this work happen. But we're not ourselves engaged in the work or, you know, we're not, we're not, we're not telling you this is the way you should all do it. You know what I mean? It's just, it's sort of, it's sort of like the benevolence versus, versus governance. You know, I know governance, you wouldn't take it that far, but I, you know, when you say things like, you know, we'll tell you how, you know, you've been failing, we're not, we're going to tell you how. I don't think that's the approach. I don't think, I don't think it's, we know better. I think it's, we have an experiment here. We have a theory that the future ecosystem doesn't look like the present. It doesn't look like monolith platforms and winner-take-all markets. It doesn't look like, it doesn't look like this, the stake, like the stalker economy or the surveillance capitalism. And there are hundreds and hundreds of really great entities out there prototyping these things, struggling to get attention and to figure out how to make a living doing this thing. We have a, we have a theory that if we sort of collect up and start to, start to do things in a particular framework, an OGME framework, that this might actually sort of click into place and we might find some resonance. And if we built, and part of the theory is that nobody's leaving behind a shared artifact of what we know, that we have no collective memory. We're not making sense of the world together. We're just spinning more episodes, right? Yeah. Okay. I mean, I guess I feel like, I'm sorry if I'm, if I'm, don't apologize, you're asking great questions. Well, I'm trying to think of a way to say this other than I don't think you're saying anything that those people don't already know. So, So why is nobody doing this? Everybody's doing this. I mean, they're not reaching across. Everybody's, everybody's busy with their own set of ideas, trying to get more attention for their ideas. Very few, very few are bridging and trying to build like the collective yet diverse system. Well, I don't see many, I don't see many initiatives doing that. I, I guess I differ on that. I mean, I feel like, you know, as, as one of the entities that both, you know, like sees the need for, for like our collective memory and, you know, to be assembled and to be available and to have it not, ooh, let's hoard it all and live, have it live on our platform, but let's figure out how we can have it, you know, interoperate between our platform and other platforms and what, you know, common, common rules on a playing field we can set so that we can do, I mean, like the business model issues to me are the biggest problems, like, you know, what is it that we're doing? Are we, if we say we're cooperating, are we cooperating in a network of co-ops? Are we cooperating in an adversarial, what's competitive, competitive? Yeah, but competitive. It's like, zero, zero, zero sum. Oh, co-opetition? No. No, it's, he has an adversarial, maybe it's adversarial interoperability. It's basically why, it's basically why you can open a Word document in pages, because not because, you know, Apple and Microsoft. Adversarial interoperability is a piece Cori Doctor wrote. Yeah, yeah. Okay, okay, so that's it. So, you know, whether it's adversarial interoperability, like actual cooperation, we're all co-ops with each of us having a stake in each other that, you know, we're, you know, how we form the business relationship that allows the endeavor that we all agree on to move forward in a more coordinated way. I don't think there's any knowledge that we as OG, I mean, I, this, you know, I have the same conversations in CTA and, you know, with new public and with the, you know, at MozFest and, you know, we're all having the same conversations that OGM has. Right, that's true. With, you know, with, I don't mean to say the same, because, you know, OGM is a wonderful collection of special people. And completely unique in the world. What's that? And completely unique in the world, of course. Well, I mean, it is, but, you know, not in the way in which it's not unique is that it sees these problems and sees, you know, that, that, you know, that Jerry's brain and factor and Trove and, you know, Kiko lab and, you know, and Junto and mastodon and, you know, all these things need to, like, work together. And there need to be aspects of them that are, are, like, information repositories that are accessible to everybody, they need to not be attention sucking, they need to have, like, economic models. Like, I feel like we all get that. And unless we're saying, well, I don't know. I don't have an answer that sentence, you know. But I do feel like there's most of the people who were on this mission, whether it's the digital standard with, with, you know, consumer reports involved or new public or, you know, Ethan Zuckerman and his, you know, academic, you know, reinventing the internet, you know, and, and so, I mean, they're just all these, not exactly parallel, but, you know, totally well-meaning and totally, like, let's get on the same page and do this. They're, frankly, a lot further along in any sense of wearing people together than OGM is. For sure. I mean, most of the videos, because we're just Nathan's. Yeah. And I worry that we, like, think too much of ourselves. I mean, we're, like, you know, that we, that we have some special sauce and some answer that's going to be enough to draw these people who are already trying to, like, come together in other ways to us. And it, especially, and the reason I often harp on the business model is because it especially feels, you know, like, I don't, because of the, the org structure, the non-profitness of, like, and the, and the established, you know, values and track record of a consumer union, consumer reports, unlike much more inclined to, to nestle under their wing or, you know, or risk the possibility that I'm losing, for lack of a better term, I mean, I hate one loss, and I think it's one of the big problems with everything we're talking about. It's like, people are trying to figure out how they win. But, you know, if, if, if through some interaction with the digital standard and, and consumer union and new public, you know, factor ended up being subsumed and, like, that was, it was part of one bigger thing, like, that's a more comfortable risk for me as one of the people in this ecosystem to take, then this kind of squishy, like, I'm not sure, like, if I, if I handed factor to OGM right now and just said, I mean, not, not wash my hands of it, but you want to support it, still want to be it, you know, what, right, but I'm putting it in OGM's hand, that would feel very risky and unknown, as smart as the group of people and as much affection as I have for them, as compared to, like, these other entities. And I'm trying to put myself, you know, there are a lot of, I'm not saying there are like slews and slews of factors out there, but there are definitely, you know, we intimately know at least a half dozen, or I do, you know, that are a really, how do we do this? How do we do this? And, and I think it's hard for us to look at OGM as an answer to that question. And I sometimes feel like it is trying to present itself that way. I mean, at least in your mind, Jerry, and, and, you know, possibly. And I'm really torn because you're, I agree with what you're saying a lot. I put the link to Street Gang in the chat because, because at the very start of Street Gang, they show you what children's TV looked like before Sesame Street. Yeah. And it was a pile of doo-doo. It was commercial programs. They were selling candy. Yeah. They were treating kids badly. It was just, it was just offensive. It was, it was actually sort of offensive, bad. Well, I mean, and, and, and, you know, kind of evil in the way that, that attention, I mean, it was total attention economy, you know, before there was social media, in the sense that it was like, you know, Saturday morning, when the folks are sleeping late, you know, we can like, instill these... Go take a call from mommy and daddy's wallet and mail it to this address. Right, right. And, and also, you know, boys play with guns, girls play with dolls, you know, Susie, homemaker, you know, whatever. So I'm putting that in the conversation right now, partly because the insight that Morissette and Gantz had was to treat children with respect and to flip the model. And they did something completely differently that basically changed children's TV forever. And they were probably one of many different efforts alive at the time. They're the one that survived, that won that particular round in a, in a market where they didn't have room for a whole bunch of, you know, of children's theater workshops, probably. And later, you get competitors like Blues Clues and so forth, but really electric company, whatever, but not a lot. Anyway, I think that there's lots of people trying to do this. I think that many, not all, of the efforts of trying to figure out how to glue all this together and make the next big thing are working at it from traditional points of view about a lot of stuff, about standing up completely for profit separate ventures, about silo data, about staying with advertising or the stock economy. They're, they're working, they're well intentioned and working towards solving for the big puzzle, but they're doing so with really old school lenses. And it's really hard to actually see how this new upside down thing works, because you have to let go of a lot of things that you thought that other people might think are essential for this. So I think that OGM is one of many, but a small crew of entities that are, that are seeing the world upside down in what I think is the right way for the future for a civilization that might actually work for all to borrow a little bit of Jordan language. And I have no concept that we're better or writer or certainly we're not farther along because we're just in conversation stage. We have really no rubber on the road. And if I were to meet the people who are doing this much better, I'd be like, can I join you? And can we meld into you and offer our energy to what you're doing? Because you've clearly sorted more of this out than we have. And I love your moving parts and all of that. So there's this like, let's not reinvent the wheel general idea in OGM, which would apply to the whole entity. Like if somebody out there is like jamming on this, let's help them succeed. But I don't see the entity that's fixing the different sort of scenes and parts in a way that we can, I think, contribute, in particular, because we've got a collection of like genius mappers and context weavers and a bunch of other things that I don't, I see lots of little spotty communities and people doing personal knowledge graphs and stuff like that. And that's like, awesome. But really, there's a much bigger part to it, for example. I mean, I guess I feel like, you know, if you spent as much time deeply talking to, I mean, like OGM to me is a unique experience in talking to the same people, you know, very frequently, very deeply about the same thing, you know, at least once a week, it's not three or four times. And I don't feel a, if I feel qualitative differences here, I feel like, you know, the IQ is like through the roof. And the life experience is great. I would rate us really highly there. In the practical application arena, I would say there's a lot more happening in other conversations. And I wish that they were, I mean, what I credit OGM for is like the, and you personally, is like bringing this much intellectual firepower into the room and keeping it there, you know, for the most part, I mean, like people wander off and stuff like that. But, you know, we're all, and maybe it's partly because we're not dealing with the practical shit of like, I mean, you know, like, I was in a meeting with folks from the Center for Humane Tech who are trying to do a curriculum for like, you know, teaching what should and shouldn't be done with technology platforms for technologists so that there's like a more of a, you know, it's like you short of unionizing all of the people who make every software product and having a universal stance to say, no, we won't work for, you know, attention, like sucking platforms, we can at least, you know, teach and educate all those people so that they're at least more skeptical of the of the negative aspects of what they're doing. And there's like this, you know, eight module, you know, each module having like six or seven chapters curriculum that, you know, we're this they've pulled together this group of people who all, you know, come at it from different stakes and we're all going through the curriculum and we're all saying, hey, you know, this really seems like it has so much political baggage that you're going to lose anybody, you know, if you say it this way, like everybody right of center is going to say, oh, this is a bunch of liberal claptrap. I'm not I'm not buying into this. Why don't we frame it this way, you know, and we're making something that is like already has a bunch of people lined up in the queue who are going to take this course. And like, that's practical. And, and in CTA, we're like, you know, batting out like, you know, profile schema and like what things can be shared. And, and we're in the heavens, you know, like, wanting to solve decision making for the world. But the practical pieces, I'm overstating it. I'm sorry, I'm being a little bit, well, hyperbolic, you know, well, I agree with you a lot, except the purpose of these calls that we're sitting in right now a little overtime is to build the general generative commons agreement that we wanted to post publicly that we wanted to try to riff on and like offer to the to the to the world as hey, this might be an interesting framing for how to work together like we're trying to create something really concrete as far as I can tell. Yeah, yeah, no, it's true. I'm talking more about OGM, because of you starting off with the quilt, and then I'm not talking about as much but well, but I think OGM is is riddled with little things that want to be practical that are trying to get birth that are stuck in the birth canal, like, like everywhere, like, like constantly, you know, and for a variety of reasons. So in the first of these calls, I said, hey, I went out and I bought generative commons.org and Pete was like, well, you need to put that like immediately into a new entity that is in the commons. And I'm like, WTF. Yeah. Right. And then for a variety of reasons, including that what we're chewing on is pretty big. We've had a bunch of like highfalutin 30,000 foot, 50,000 foot. And now 50,000 feet doesn't sound high enough because of Branson and Bezos. So it's like we're beyond beyond the Watch Macaulay line. The Watch Macaulay line is 62,000 feet or something like that into the Kuiper belt. I don't know. But but also like, I own WeDon'tStock.com, which I bought some time ago. And I was like, what if what if organizations just took a pledge? Forget the union. But what if it took a pledge? And the pledge says, hey, we need to collect your personal data, but we will never sell it. We don't reuse it. We use it to make your experience better, blah, blah, blah, blah. There's an interesting narrative there. It's not a thing, right? And if you to put the practical, I'm sorry, I'm interrupting. I was just going to say, I would love the funding and focus and paid dedication of a bunch of people to actually go put these things in the world and make them available and meld them with other people's thinking and whatever else it takes to get this all to like fly. That's part of why I'm trying to pitch some funding for OGM slash the big quilt. And so I also in the chat to remind myself I put a different question to you, which is, you've asked great questions and I totally agree. And like, what would solve the problem for you? What what could OGM focus on that would be realistic, palpable, backable, et cetera? Well, I mean, I think a big quilt for a while. Kind of said this, just that I would, I would feel like, and I don't know how this works in with the relationship to Lion's Bird, which I almost feel like is, you know, Lion's Bird is a promise that in some ways gives a, I mean, it's not an open checkbook, I realize, but it's, you know, it's a checkbook supercharger. And and it's a and it's a an excuse to avoid, for the moment, the entity question, you know, it kicks that can down the road because Lion's Bird is an open nonprofit that people can give to and Lion's Bird is going to like match funds that can be raised. But but in terms of, you know, what I think would solve the OGM problem I see is if if OGM, you know, you know, the concept of the donor advised fund that like, you know, okay, I'm going to give all this stuff to charity, but I'm not really sure what yet. So I'm going to put it all in this donor advised fund. And then I'm going to decide how to go let out. This is be sort of the opposite of the donor advised fund. It's like, I want this to do good. But I'm not sure where it should end up. And I need an entity that is funding other entities. And so I'm looking for, you know, in this vision, OGM to be the entity to which I as a person, with the purpose of supporting global shared knowledge and, you know, and any of a bunch of other principles that we would lay out, I'm going to give my money to OGM and OGM is going to figure out where to put it. But I know OGM isn't going to do it for their own benefit. We're going to do it for the benefit of the world. And I don't have to worry about like, oh, the money isn't going to get given, if they decide that, hey, consumer union is doing the best on this, we're going to give some money to consumer union and new public is doing best on this, we're going to do this. And this, you know, like global south, you know, technology initiative, we're going to put some money over there. And like, we're certainly not going to just play dumb and just hand out money. We're definitely going to be humans who connect humans to other humans. But our goal is for this to happen. Our assumption is that we're not, well, while our conception of what the problems are in the world is going to govern how we dole out that money, we're not assuming that we're the people who know best and are going to actually execute on it. And there's not going to be like in-house coding going on and projects that are official OGM projects as opposed to OGM projects that are supported. And I know that I see that furrowing your brow and I know that's different than what you imagined. But I mean, I'm just saying that I think it would be a much, a much easier story to tell. And you'd have like basically, it allows this open net and, you know, and people, it's like, it puts OGM in the position of like, we want to know everything that's going on outside of us because we want to identify what the best of it is. And everybody outside of you, like we want to tell our story in the terms that meet OGM's values so that we can submit a grant application. Because, you know, and like in some cases it might be OGM saying, okay, this year we're giving six, you know, let's be ambitious. We're being, we were giving six one million, I was, I thought one million. Come on, come on, all right, all right. Okay, we're giving us for six trillion. Okay. But I was just going to say that with specific like problem solve, we want, we want there to be, you know, a universal login that does not compromise, that, you know, is OAuth with a conscience that doesn't compromise like what people are doing and their data sovereignty and all of that. And we see that, you know, you, Kaliya Young, Identity Women, and then this like entity over here are working on that and that, you know, you digital standard are working on that. And so like we're, we've identified you six as the people who are doing the best work on that and we're giving you each a million bucks to like make that happen. Or we've said, we've looked and we've said that one of you is doing the best job and we want to elevate you over the others and we're going to give you more money and try and steer the other folks to like jump on your bandwidth. But that we're really like trying to be the supportive foundation more than to be another player in the game who has a different, slightly different theory than everybody else already has that, you know, is wants to be one standard to rule them all, but still wants to be its own standard. And therefore, you know, the cartoon, the classic meme, now there are 15 standards instead of 14. Right. So I like it. A couple things, what you described, so what you described was kind of the third piece of what I've been pitching already. So the video that I did cut a while ago, which was fellows oriented instead of project oriented. But if you were to swap in projects and take out fellowships, fellows, the idea is to fill a reservoir so that we can fund current projects right now being production of a show. Other sort of projects that are building parts that we see that other people don't seem to be doing yet. And we've attracted a few people who like Yuri Lyos and Marc-Antoine Tarrant and a few others who've got like a bunch of code. They don't know how to get paid for. Nobody's really paying for them. If they could be funded to complete that and put it in the commons, that would be us funding those particular gifts, but nobody else has them in their sites. And we can see how their value fits into the bigger puzzle. So let's fill those little pools and those are little pools. And then, and the way I pitched it in the video that I shot was, and that's the first half million. If we get a million dollars, the second half million goes into a fund that does exactly what you just said that has as its investment thesis, the pieces that OGM wants to see built, and we just go put money in some initiatives that we know are doing the work to help them complete that work faster. So I think that's not different at all from what you just said, but that was for me the third bucket. And I'm not interested in running a fund where all I do is choose from between people appealing for funds and saying, well, you know, talking to donors and bring it like that's not interesting to me, partly because I can, I see dead people, like I can see missing things out in the environment that need to be funded, that need to be stood up, that I don't see other people seeing. And the moment I find somebody who's got that thing, and they're like, yes, I saw it too. And here it is. Awesome puzzle piece solved. We put it in place. Or the puzzle pieces is 75% done. And if only it had this other thing that it is open source. So let's fund the completion of that piece of work so that it fits with the puzzle. This is a little bit like Kintsugi, right? Kintsugi is the Japanese art of taking a broken pot and reassembling it. We're using gold and solder and making it more beautiful than it was before, because the parts fit. And like the broken pieces are actually beautiful. Yet another metaphor. But I think a piece of what OGM has on deck is a bunch of perspectives on what's missing that people aren't actually doing yet, that may be tiny things, may just be a framing for how to do things. I don't know. And I'm really interested in funding those, building those and seeing how they fit together to complete the puzzle in some way. Always with, you know, if we don't, if somebody else is way ahead of us on any of this stuff, let's just back them. But there's a bunch of pieces here where I haven't figured out who's there. And you just gave me the thought, which I don't think is what we want to do. But there's an interesting thought here about being the MacArthur Foundation for the next economies, which is compelling, because everybody knows the MacArthur Foundation. And all they do is genius grants. And I frankly don't know what MacArthur Geniuses have done. And they have fueled a bunch of great thinkers individually, individually, to do good stuff and be able to like really double down on their work. Phenomenal. They're not weaving anything together. And I don't know. I mean, yes and no. Because I would say that they're at the point, you know, where they are, you know, just the virtue of giving, they're like weaving, I mean, somebody who is obscure, you know, and obscurely toiling on this thing is instantly thrust into the midst of whatever network just by getting the grant. Totally. That individual is yes. And by being a grantee and going to grant meetings, they meet other grantees. How else are they actually weaving anything bigger? Yeah. Anything bigger, seriously. So I think that there's a huge gap here where I'm thrilled that they're supporting individuals, but they're not weaving sure anything bigger. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, I would say a MacArthur, you know, for the next economy would like instinctually be like here's here, like if there were individuals identified, it would be like here, you know, Mark Antoine and Yuri and other people and Vincent, you know, whoever, yeah, here's this money that you only get if you work together toward this thing. Kind of. Kind of. Yeah. If you can make a stew out of, if you can make a stew that sort of fits these descriptions, there's a pool of money for you. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean that incentive grants to finish parts of the puzzle. Right. So in a way, it's more like the X prize for the next economy. You know, it's like, you know, let's let's let's set some let's set some goals and challenge. You know, that's the thing I was saying about the like six one million dollar things toward act toward this thing. Sorry, not X, because I just used X is something else now. Yeah. But, you know, just like this is something that is really crucial to us moving forward in the new knowledge economy. Like, yeah, identify that. And I guess, you know, a little bit of what the tension for me and some of the stuff that you you say and verse what I say is the difference between like, we want to do all these things. And as soon as we find somebody who's doing those things better, we'll stop and support that person. I feel like there's so many people doing so many good things that we should be supporting the people who are doing doing things until and I don't expect this will happen much. We find that there is really one thing that no one's working on at all that nobody has seen but us. And I think you think that we are on to something unique more than I do. I mean, I'm just more, you know, my sense, the more people I talk to, the more I realize that there's not there's no lack of solutions. It's more, you know, there's no lack of understanding. I mean, I take that back. There's plenty of lack of understanding, but, but, you know, somebody understands each thing better than you or I. And like our generalists, I'm not trying to put the three of us in a special boat, but, you know, the generalists overview that smart people bring, that a lot of the people in this, in OGM bring, you know, it is a saving grace, sometimes compared to somebody who's got blinders on and is coming up with a very specific solution for a bit like, you know, comes up with the formula for the perfect gold to like mend those broken pieces. Right. But, you know, I do think that that that generalism is, I don't mean to call it unspecial, but, you know, I think that the the bits of genius on particular issues, like, you know, I mean, I look to support Kalea in solving, you know, sovereign identity before I think, like, well, this whole thing that we're dealing with, reflective intelligence, demand, sovereign intent, and then the sovereign identity, and like, that's got to be a part of this bigger thing that we solve until we find somebody doing the whole thing better, if that makes sense. I think so. And then, yeah, and Stacy, I was going to ask you what you thought. So, good timing. Okay, so your quilt is actually something that I've been thinking about and trying to get people to see since 2019. And I called it a reality game show because the game part is what would bring people in to want to participate. And the problem, it was too big of an idea with too many moving pieces for me to explain it in a way, but I would like to have another call with you, because I have so many notes that related to the economy and related to this. So to Michael's point, what he was talking about, you know, with people working on sovereign identity, the creating of the game show would give an opportunity for those people to bring their ideas in. So that's why they'd want to participate in it. I mean, you have to focus me. I'd be better off if you asked me specific questions, and I could tell you how this model would work. That would be easier than explaining it. So I didn't know that you had this model in your head and I'm thrilled about it and want to ask more questions about it. I also was just interested in your visceral sensory reaction to this whole conversation. Like what's resonating, what energetically, what feels where? Like just a... Well, obviously I'm thrilled because I kind of got to OGM. Really, I told you that for you. So I'm thrilled that I have somebody that sees what I had in my head. And I understand Michael's skepticism because that goes to what you were saying before about it's a totally new way of looking at things and it's hard to get those new models in. And that's where I think of people like Michelle bringing her in to kind of look at things to make sure we're including different pieces. And I think in the beginning you said something about we'd actually be living in the commons. And a big part of this idea of creating a show, which I think the show itself could be something that eventually could pay off. And so it's sort of like that IOU model. I mean, I have too much to say it right now. But I think there's... So again, in this idea of a show, I see the projects wanting to be part of the show. But they're not working against each other because let's say for argument's sake you had three different projects that all focused on food. They're not competing against each other. They're highlighting, but there might be other people that want to push their software that they're working on and they want to win the money to further develop it. They would want to pitch those things to the projects and then the projects get to choose what they want. And I need help because I don't understand some of it, but my idea... I just wanted to get people involved in creating it. And then we get the best minds to work on the people that are really interested in governance. They focus on that part of the show. And that brings in their creativity. So people are enjoining the show to make money. They're joining it because it's part of a community, but they might make money. And Michael, when you talk about like Factor wouldn't want to give themselves over to OGM, well, but if there's a separate thing, the big quilt, you might want to play and be part of it and see how it works and see if there's something. But just you're coming anyway just because you're friends. It's a social network. Yeah, sure. And I mean, the sort of giving self over, by the way, was just like at the extreme. I mean, obviously, I'm here to be in here donating Phil's time. It's enough not to be withholding. But yeah, I'm just sort of almost thinking more for others who are finding out. But I think you're right, Stacey, that there are certainly things... Being tempted to just come in and play the game, be in the game show, be part of the quilt is an attractive thing for all kinds of people. Can you ask Phil if he taped our call? Because we had two calls and again, I kept evolving the ideas, but it was pretty much about this, both calls. So I don't know if he taped them. I can ping him on matter most. One other question of something you mentioned that I actually saw, I don't know if this is from, if these things are the same thing, but you mentioned the concept of IOUs. And I saw that mentioned in the HackMD from yesterday's meeting. I don't know if that's... Stacey, were you at yesterday's meeting? Yes, I was. And so that was that. Tell me about the IOUs. I'm happy to do that, unless you want to, Stacey. No, you can because I'm not sure, but what I will say is when I was envisioning this, I don't know how many of you know about something called seeds. Heard of it, yes. Have it in my brain. Okay. So again, in my mind, I was thinking they would be a perfect tie-in. I never spoke to them about it. I spoke to somebody else for his opinion of it. That's on tape as well. But they're looking to create a new economy. And I thought that using seeds as a way to track the IOUs would be another way to bring in, everybody in their community. So I don't know if that's what you mean by IOUs, that if you then get money, you know who's owed money for participating and working. Pretty much. There's also a platform named Co-Makery. And I don't really know how it works. But I think a piece of this is sort of choosing experimental platforms for to solve different parts of this puzzle. And the IOU thing is that there are people contributing a lot to OGM and to other projects whose work could be sort of paid forward or rewarded later rather than paid forward. Because paid forward means something entirely different. And there's people who could sort of justify contributing a lot more of their toil right now if they knew that it was being banked somehow. And partly I feel like, oh my gosh, we could easily run up a huge tab because lots of people are contributing lots of sorts of things here. What do we reward? What do we not? And then I can also on the positive side, I can see getting grant funding for stuff that is mostly built because the people have been working on an IOU basis for a while. And then it's like, awesome, we got the funds, here's the thing. Now we can clear that IOU and this piece of code goes into the commons or something like that. That's kind of how I'm envisioning it possibly working. But I think one of the really big questions here is how do we reward value creation in the network? And how do we reward value creation in a way that isn't also about surveillance and monitoring? So a long time ago, semi famously among a few people, the Omidyar network created Omidyar.net, a bunch of people jumped in. And one of the key features of the Omidyar network was that you could give people, everybody got a bank of points and you could give other people points for good things they did in the network. But after your name, after your ID, wherever you were in the system was a number in parentheses. And that number was like the number of points you had accrued. And that interface choice, that one interface choice made me never come back. I had no desire to be in a community where there was like my measure was after my name, wherever I went. And that meant that I was like asking people, it implies, can you drop some chits in my bin so my number gets bigger? It's like that just broke the social nature of the collaboration. And also, as a carrier of occasional outsider ideas, I'm not interested in competing for popularity of the ideas. I'm trying to find people who see that the ideas are important. And usually, that's a little minority of the crowd, right? And so how to do that? Anyway, I think that a monster issue that we're all facing, I mean, I think one of the issues is what is the right relationship for an entity like factor in the future in this whole ecosystem? What is the best and highest purpose they can they can play so that the people building the platform are happy so that it's a profit making entity so that it's playing well in the commons, all of those kinds of things, right? Yeah, I mean, profit making entity not in session. Profit meaning that there's money above what it costs to actually run the platform. Or funding, you know, in another model, despite the fact that there isn't. So, yeah, but yeah, functional, sustainable. Exactly, functional, sustainable. And so that implies trying out a bunch of stuff too. So I think that's where that's where we're heading. And then there's interesting ways to pragmatically try to run a lot of these things. One of the problems we're going to run into is that every platform out there sees the whole world and is building lots of the whole world, right? So the OFC platform that we had a bit of a demo of a couple of days ago, Pete and I were on the call with Caitlin and Judy. And Caitlin did a really nice job sort of showing us the platform they got. They're sort of building out a lot of stuff that overlaps a bunch with Trove, for example, and where Vincent is going. And I don't know how that plays out. I really don't know how that plays out. And so the flotilla calls that that are happening on Fridays are an attempt to create a neutral space to talk through some of these issues. And I don't know how that, again, I don't know how that plays out. But I think that experimenting is really important. Being loose about the experiments is important over time so that we can swing to a new vine when something shows up. Building models that let organizations that are intended to be for benefit or for profit like work in this world well is important. And making it so that the increasing number of free agents can thrive in this world is really important. Because what I see from employment trends is fewer and fewer full-time employees, more and more people going off on their own. Some of whom are going to do just fine because they're in high paid professions and they've got a reputation. Many of whom are going to slip into the precariat because there's not a lot of money in the gig economy and other kinds of sort of independent vehicles like that. So how do we make that better? Right? Can I just add one thing? Yes, please. I guess we're getting... I just want to say, you know, with the idea of the show, to not lose the idea that we're testing out a possible new economy. To really keep that, that's something that is an interesting thing to do to see how it works. And to recognize that by doing a show, we're going to increase diversity by being able to bring in creatives, which by nature are more diverse. So like each one of these little things, there could be background music, you know, or a new opening song. So what's different about this economy than the other economy is that we want to create work, which is totally different than what we have now. Agreed. Agreed. We've gone along in a wonderful time. Any wrapping, any closing thoughts for this conversation? The show must go on. Oh my god. I love that. Cool. Yeah. So thank you. And Stacey, I'm thrilled that like a lot of the vision that you were having was resonating here. That's really... Oh, I'm so thrilled. So keep your notes. Don't lose those notes from this call. I'm going to be pulling them out. I sent a question to Phil to find out if he recorded, so we'll figure that out. If they are reported though, I don't mind sharing them individually. I'd rather not be public. Yep. I have a feeling the answer will be no. I have the same feeling. Yeah. Phil's not inclined to... I might have asked him to at the time. I sometimes ask people to do it and save it. Cool. In that case, another one. Awesome. Bye. Thank you. Bye. Good to see you all. Yeah, we didn't shut down these calls. Bye. Yeah.