0:13

Kevin took my criticisms pretty well . It wasn't

0:15

like that we disagreed or anything

0:17

. My main point was just

0:19

that when you say

0:22

like coordination

0:24

or that like I'm coordinating and

0:26

that everything is coordination , that

0:28

in certain contexts and situations

0:31

it can kind of gloss over

0:33

the power relationships that

0:35

are in that specific context

0:38

. Like I think when you

0:40

say , because it's kind of like , it's

0:42

like reminiscent of saying you know , there

0:44

was some sort of like as if everything is

0:46

just kind of like a miscommunication , that like

0:48

the communication failure

0:51

is just like oh , we should have communicated

0:53

better , we should have had better coordination

0:56

mechanisms for XYZ , and totally

0:59

like I think that's that

1:01

can be a very true statement . I

1:03

think it's just that if you're looking at , like

1:06

the example that we used and we're talking about was

1:08

oil and gas exploration

1:11

like if I'm

1:13

an oil and gas executive , like

1:15

it's definitely not like a

1:17

miscommunication or a coordination failure

1:19

that I'm continuing to extract

1:22

oil and gas from the ground and

1:24

sell it to make money that's

1:26

sort of like the way that the system

1:28

works and the reason that we can't

1:30

tell the oil and gas executive like

1:33

hey , can you stop it ? Or , like

1:35

you know , we can't just say like hey

1:37

, I think there's been a miscommunication , you're supposed

1:40

to not do that anymore , because we don't want you to like

1:42

they're not going to listen to that . Of course , because there's

1:44

a power differential and there's , like you

1:47

know , this system that people are embedded

1:49

in that they can't necessarily break

1:51

out of as an individual , and it requires

1:53

, it requires coordination , of course

1:56

, but it requires coordination towards

1:58

some sort of collective action

2:00

and that means , like , fighting

2:02

power . Yeah , so I exactly .

2:04

I think there's like a degree to which , in

2:07

my view , coordination is basically just

2:09

people coming together to do something

2:11

, and the important question is

2:13

what are they actually going to come together to do ? What

2:16

are they trying to accomplish ? And I think we

2:18

often make the mistake of

2:21

assuming that we can

2:23

just sort of like set up a arbitrary

2:25

, abstract situation and then , you

2:28

know , just kind of throw these sort

2:30

of concepts or mechanisms

2:32

at it . But there's a much broader

2:34

social context that all this exists

2:36

within , and I think to me that's where we

2:38

actually need to be more

2:40

precise about the sort

2:42

of goals of crypto

2:45

or , you know , web3 quote unquote

2:47

as an ecosystem . So to me it's um

2:49

, I don't know , everything is people . People

2:52

have to do things together , and then what are they

2:54

doing together ? What are we , what are we like

2:56

trying to accomplish ? And I think

2:58

to that extent , coordination

3:01

is like it's a good thing to like

3:03

outline , especially like when you're creating a

3:05

new technology , because usually

3:08

in like the modern , in like the modern age , that technology is

3:11

going to be somewhat social . It's going

3:13

to involve like people coordinating

3:15

, like working together . But I

3:18

think that like kind of explicit description

3:20

of what we're trying to do is something that's been

3:23

missing from the crypto ecosystem for

3:25

a long time and

3:27

, in a way , it's been one of the strengths of the movement , because

3:30

by not strictly defining

3:32

, you know exactly what we're coordinating

3:34

towards . People have , from all different parts

3:36

of sort of the political

3:38

spectrum to the extent that exists . I don't necessarily believe

3:40

that's right mental framework , like

3:44

they can all agree that they

3:46

at least want to build some cool stuff and that cool

3:48

stuff might eventually be useful . But

3:51

I do think this is like kind of the point we're coming to now

3:53

, where we have this sort of question

3:56

of , okay , we built all this infrastructure , what are

3:58

we going to do with it ? And

4:01

I don't think in that context , we've actually

4:03

really articulated you know

4:05

, what does meaningful adoption

4:08

of crypto look like ? What does meaningful

4:10

what is a real world use case of crypto

4:12

look like ? And we have some of those

4:14

that are starting to emerge which is awesome

4:16

, by the way , I'm actually

4:18

very which we can get to like pro

4:20

infrastructure . I think we actually don't have quite

4:22

enough infrastructure , which is a hot tape

4:25

, but I think that , like the real world

4:27

applications have to be grounded in some kind of like

4:29

truth about the world in terms

4:31

of what we actually want to achieve , not

4:34

just as a technology but as a movement

4:36

, and that's where I think we've

4:39

lost a bit of the

4:41

. I think I can .

4:42

I can understand the maybe

4:45

strategic approach to framing

4:49

things in almost like a politically neutral

4:51

way by saying , like

4:53

coordinate , by using the

4:55

, the meme of coordination to like bring

4:57

people in . And I think , no

5:00

, no matter where you are in the political spectrum

5:02

like everyone's had the experience

5:04

of like a giant miscommunication

5:06

or a lack of coordination

5:08

in some sort of social group that caused some sort of like

5:11

negative outcome , but

5:14

then indeed it were . I think crypto

5:16

is sort of like in this situation now

5:18

, where it's like okay , we have all

5:20

these people who are , like they're interested

5:23

in like coordination abstractly , but

5:25

we don't really know the , the direction

5:27

to go in . So , like then there's missing

5:29

this , I don't

5:32

know clear , clear direction to go , and

5:34

my feeling is that this

5:36

means that there is no

5:39

like . I like

5:42

it's hard for me to say that there is a crypto

5:44

movement personally , because I feel like it's

5:46

made up of so many different , uh

5:49

, like different groups

5:51

with different beliefs

5:54

and like ideas about what that

5:56

future is supposed to look like . So

5:59

, like you'll have I mean you have people who

6:01

will say that , like , we need to like

6:04

completely destruct the state

6:06

and like create , you know , bitcoin

6:08

as our , our currency for the world

6:10

. And then you'll have other people who will say , like we

6:12

need blockchain to be mass adopted by

6:14

all of the banks and like all these institutions

6:18

, that we have mass adoption for crypto , and there's like

6:20

this there's a tension inside of crypto

6:22

that I think hasn't been dealt

6:24

with yet , but will

6:27

need to be dealt with like

6:29

it , like it is , like it is going to be dealt with in

6:31

some capacity either , like

6:33

you know , crypto gets adopted , uh

6:36

, gets mass adoption through , like you know

6:38

, paypal having their stablecoin becoming

6:40

super popular or something like that . Or I

6:42

mean , maybe , maybe the you

6:45

know crypto anarchists are right and the state does

6:47

somehow collapse because everyone's

6:49

using bitcoin to pay for things we need

6:51

a uh PayPal , uh

6:54

, you know , uh , global world

6:56

government , that's uh , that's actually

6:58

that's the future , that's , that's the worst

7:01

habitat actually is very nice .

7:03

It's a very it's a very nice habitat . They

7:05

they provide a lot of like PayPal

7:07

themed foods a lot of billionaires as well

7:09

beverages . I don't even know a lot

7:12

of , a lot of , yeah , a lot of billionaires . The PayPal

7:14

mafia , you know , owns most of the property

7:16

, but like that's fine

7:18

. Um , I do think that like there's

7:20

so yeah , like this is an interesting question

7:23

in the context of movement building , because

7:25

I've been thinking a lot about like

7:27

historical movements um

7:30

, and actually this sort of ties

7:32

back to like even

7:35

like open-source software as sort of like

7:37

a cultural movement . Um , like

7:39

red turner has a really good book from

7:42

uh counterculture to cyberculture , about

7:44

like how , essentially , you know , going back

7:46

to like stupe brand and like the whole earth catalog , this movement

7:49

was sort of first about like ideals

7:51

and then sort of just tangentially about technology

7:53

and that sort of like shaped its

7:56

, its development . But I

7:58

think the interesting like question

8:01

with crypto is like in in some sense it is a movement

8:03

like . It certainly is against like certain

8:06

certain outcomes , um , at least historically

8:08

, if you go back to like its roots and like the cyberpunk

8:10

movement , to the extent that it's like kept

8:12

a single consistent thread

8:15

around , like what it stands for , I think that's

8:17

definitely not true . Uh

8:20

, it's , it's certainly alleviated from that , but

8:22

I do think there's some value in structuring

8:25

our like thinking around it as

8:28

a movement , because when

8:30

you think about movements , they sort of go through life

8:33

cycles . They , um , they

8:35

start , they sort of like grow , they

8:37

like start to , you know , slow down and

8:39

and sort of reach this sort of um

8:41

, you know top of the S-curve , and then they sort

8:44

of head into like some kind of mitosis , they , they

8:46

fragment and they split and and I do

8:48

think crypto is kind of in this phase now of splitting

8:50

in this way where ultimately

8:53

we need to figure out , like , what

8:55

is the actual sort of you

8:58

know fork of this movement

9:00

that we want to like really see reach

9:03

some kind of mass adoption , and

9:05

I do think that like to . In my view , that's probably

9:07

not the one where we just sort of end up being like

9:09

well , I guess you know the sales force coin

9:12

is doing really well , we're gonna

9:14

see that like the , that's

9:16

the future . But at the same time I mean , without

9:18

those sorts of players like having some kind of

9:20

say in the system , it , it will

9:22

be challenging to like really

9:25

make meaningful change . So you have this , this

9:27

constant dichotomy

9:29

, or like or like tension

9:32

between movements

9:34

that are really really , um

9:37

, idealized , but really don't

9:39

get anywhere . It's very hard for them to like build

9:41

momentum or they or

9:43

they fragment too much um that because

9:45

of like the rigidity of of the movement

9:47

itself . So , like , occupy Wall Street is

9:50

, um , maybe an example of , on

9:52

the one hand , like a movement that just kind of peered out because

9:54

it had so many different directions , and

9:57

, on the other hand , a movement like , let's

9:59

say , the purely like free

10:01

software movement is one that kind of ended

10:04

up being red queen , doubted existence

10:06

in a sense , by like the fact that you

10:09

had other sort of like open source

10:11

players come in and say we , we sort

10:13

of want to like take this in a different direction

10:15

. And I'm not saying either , those are

10:17

good outcomes actually , like I think both Occupy

10:19

as a movement and the free software movement

10:22

uh had a lot of good to them in

10:24

the sense of , you know , they were both

10:26

very , they had strong idealistic

10:28

visions , they had

10:31

very principal kind of members

10:33

, um , but they

10:35

also didn't have the organization

10:37

to like really reach

10:40

like kind of uh the sort of

10:42

like level of scale

10:44

to be like uh meaningful , quote

10:46

unquote out of you know um over

10:49

a one , two decade period and

10:51

and krypton's kind of getting to this

10:53

point where it's like now at , like you know the end of

10:55

the first decade and now it's like kind

10:57

of halfway through the second . We're like , okay , what are we

10:59

like ? What is , what is the

11:01

sort of like end goal of this ? What is the

11:04

like you know next stage of this

11:06

? Um , in

11:08

my view , it's possible to get too

11:10

far in the other direction where you really

11:13

just sacrifice everything to like like make

11:16

the movement go fast . You know , like

11:18

this is like the

11:20

constant problem of um . You

11:22

know every well-intentioned uh startup

11:25

um like you know the let's

11:27

say hypothetically , the I'll

11:29

say the anthropic problem , I won't even

11:31

say the open AI problem , but like , hey , we're gonna

11:33

like solve this . You know AI

11:35

safety problem actually , just kidding , we're like gonna

11:38

build some more capacity for

11:40

AI . Actually , uh , that seems like more profitable

11:42

and it's

11:45

not a probably fully fair characterization of

11:47

of that case . But on

11:49

the one hand , yeah , in movements you have this problem of like

11:51

these early stage kind of

11:53

like deaths or like um slowdowns

11:56

of movements before they can or or

11:58

mitosis of movements before they can reach adoption

12:00

, and , on the other hand , you have this like massive

12:03

overgrowth of movements and this

12:06

is a very narrow corridor , like which is like the

12:08

problem with this , this sort of like framing , is

12:10

like it's a very and

12:12

I think this is just like the

12:15

thin line that we have to walk . Unfortunately

12:17

, this , like this , this thin line , basically

12:19

, is the only place where we

12:22

, the movement , succeeds

12:24

while retaining some

12:27

notion of like the initial initial

12:29

values that it that it

12:31

had , um , and

12:34

I don't know how you think about

12:36

that . I mean , that's that's sort of like what came to mind

12:38

, but I realized that's like a really long . I

12:40

mean it was it's .

12:42

For me it's reminiscent of a book that

12:44

I really like called neither vertical nor horizontal

12:47

by Rodrigo Nunez , or

12:49

he's . I mean he's talking specifically about different left-wing

12:51

movements , how , um

12:53

, sometimes there is this

12:55

idea that we have two choices either

12:58

we have a completely like anarchists

13:00

flat , horizontal movement

13:03

nobody has power but everybody has power

13:05

at the same time , kind of like occupy wall

13:07

street type of thing or a completely vertical

13:09

, highly organized , highly

13:12

disciplined but much

13:14

smaller group of people who are trying

13:16

to initiate change , as

13:18

if , like , those are the only two choices of like the

13:21

organization problem is either that or the

13:23

other . But he's trying to advocate for

13:25

like a more , a much , much more nuanced

13:27

sort of understanding of organization building

13:30

and mass movement building that is

13:32

kind of , like , you know , diagonal in some way

13:34

. I guess you could say that that has elements

13:36

of both , based on the context and situation

13:38

that we're in , and having like a plurality

13:40

of different types of of strategies and different

13:42

types of organizations that are all working

13:44

towards like a general , like same

13:46

general kind of goal . Um , since

13:49

historically those are like the types of movements that

13:51

have one I mean like the , the feminist movement

13:54

in the beginning like one

13:56

because it had many different types

13:58

of organizations who all didn't agree

14:00

with each other on a lot of things , but they

14:02

were able to like reach like certain certain

14:04

larger goals that were really , um , that

14:07

had a lot of like social progress , and

14:09

so that's kind of what I think about , but

14:11

maybe it's been about uh , about 14

14:13

minutes now , so I wanted to um

14:16

pause the discussion to introduce

14:18

my uh guest today is

14:20

Scott Moore . He is the co-founder

14:22

of Gitcoin and he's also

14:25

starting a new project called Public

14:27

Works . He's a steward for

14:29

a few other DOWs and is an advisor

14:31

for MetaGov . I've been having

14:34

the pleasure of being able to talk

14:36

a lot with Scott the past like couple of months

14:38

, I would say . Now we just ended up being at like

14:40

a lot of the same places and we've been having a

14:42

lot of just back and forth of like interesting

14:45

conversations , so it's nice to finally have one that's

14:47

uh recorded , I think

14:49

awesome .

14:50

Yeah , thank you for having me . I feel like , um

14:53

, that's probably a good , honestly , starting point

14:55

for Any any

14:57

discussion on the space , because I think

14:59

that this narrow corridor of like which

15:01

I think is actually what the author you mentioned

15:03

is is probably also like in alignment with . It

15:06

is like probably the most important question

15:08

that we actually have to answer as a

15:10

space , and I

15:12

see like not

15:14

that many people which

15:17

you know . Maybe it's just a result of the fact that , like

15:19

there's already so many attacks

15:21

on the space just Naturally

15:24

occurring that we have to defend against . Like I don't see a lot

15:26

of people taking like an active approach

15:28

to trying to articulate , like , what is

15:30

the future ? Like decade

15:32

vision of the space itself

15:34

. But , yeah , great to be here

15:36

, really enjoyed . Like are also unrecorded

15:39

conversations and

15:41

hopefully we can like , yeah , touch on some of those ideas here

15:43

too .

15:44

Yeah for sure . So

15:46

we're like . So , like we were just talking about , I

15:50

just like kind of summarizing a bit of

15:52

the what are the sort of discussion

15:54

points that I had with Kevin Awakey on his Podcast

15:57

Green Pill , when I was on not too long

15:59

ago talking about the book . But

16:02

yeah , there's kind of like this question of

16:05

, I think this larger question of like coordination

16:08

, and I think get coin was

16:10

One of the I guess

16:12

kind of like the main Rep

16:15

organization . I guess I was pushing the

16:17

meme for for coordination

16:19

the representative of the concept . Yeah

16:23

, they were repping coordination as a concept

16:25

, yeah

16:27

, but I thought maybe we can , in case people don't

16:30

know who you are , if you want to talk a bit about , about

16:32

get coin and how , yeah

16:34

, I guess a problem that was initially trying to solve and and

16:37

kind of what's come out of it , the story behind it .

16:39

Yeah , so I feel like Get coin

16:41

has gone through a lot of iterations . I

16:43

Think one of the things maybe

16:46

isn't the right metric to really focus

16:49

on . I don't want to , like you know , end

16:52

up in Good hearts law , but , like

16:54

we've existed for about five

16:56

and a half years , which by crypto standards is Already

16:59

a long time , and we've gone through like

17:01

so many changes over that period , it's hard to

17:03

like encapsulate all of them . But

17:06

the overall like original mission and I'll

17:08

try and keep this short it was like how

17:11

do we actually fund open source software as

17:14

a sort of public good in a way that is

17:17

equivalent to the way that you

17:19

know , other kinds of public goods locally get funded

17:21

when there's a government , you

17:23

know a city or a state or a nation

17:26

that can actually like facilitate and

17:28

sort of maintain

17:30

it , and Historically

17:33

this has been a huge problem for open source software because

17:35

you have all these maintainers who are Are

17:37

really not that concerned Based

17:40

on , as I started saying before , like the historical

17:43

cultural nature

17:45

of open source with money but

17:48

still need money to actually like exist

17:50

. It turns out we all sort of

17:52

need money to like do things in the world

17:54

. Unfortunately at least currently . I

17:59

actually think Money can be good

18:01

in a David Graber sense . There's lots of , like

18:03

you know , ethan Buckman talks a lot about

18:05

this , so I won't dwell on it , but , like , read

18:08

his work on sort of the nature of money

18:10

in crypto as sort of a means

18:12

of sort of Managing

18:14

debt very interesting stuff . But

18:17

I think that , like , historically , open source has

18:19

been very to that , you

18:21

know , same view , like anti money , and

18:24

what this is meant is that you

18:26

know you have all these One security

18:28

risks that come from that where , like , like Hartley was a

18:30

great example in 2014 , open

18:33

SSL had this like heartbeat option and , essentially , like there's

18:35

this like over read where

18:38

you could just pull in all this like ostensibly

18:41

private data and Then

18:43

get access to everyone's sort of accounts . It

18:46

caused billions of dollars of economic damage because , you

18:49

know , in the XKTD sense , the one guy

18:51

from Nebraska who was maintaining

18:53

all these things I actually don't think he was

18:55

from Nebraska in that case , but

18:58

that's the sort of comic he

19:00

was just doing this in his spare time

19:02

. He had a job , he had a family and

19:04

stuff he had to do in like the real world , so , so

19:06

to speak , and he just ended up , you

19:08

know , forgetting that . You

19:10

know there was this security vulnerability I guess that

19:12

he was supposed to fix or maybe didn't see it . And you

19:15

know , part of the reason that happens is just because

19:18

there's not funding for open source

19:20

software in the same way as we have funding

19:22

for roads and bridges and electrical

19:24

grids . And the other problem is sort

19:26

of you know , more fundamental , which

19:28

is Because there's not really

19:30

money in the system . You

19:33

don't really have a way to Sort

19:36

of account for , like

19:38

you know , thinking money is a unit of count the

19:41

work that people are doing in that system

19:43

and giving them sort of a clear sense of

19:45

ownership over the project

19:47

as it grows . And so there's

19:49

there's sort of you know , on the one hand

19:51

, the problem here that emerges , where maintainers don't

19:54

necessarily want to give up control , maintainers

19:56

are , you know , usually

19:58

one or two people that are just doing this on their own

20:00

and you get this problem of there's

20:02

no one to like kind of be

20:05

in succession of them . But

20:07

the other problem that emerges is that you

20:10

don't really have community governance and instead what happens

20:12

is Other larger

20:14

corporate players come in and they say wait

20:16

a minute , like we can just give you like Tons

20:19

of money like we can . If your community

20:22

isn't funding you , we can fund you , but we just

20:24

want to be able to decide everything that happens in

20:26

the project for like the next 10 years . And

20:28

then , of course , this creates like

20:30

all these Like larger

20:32

problems for the broader open source community

20:35

that they could have solved if they had been

20:37

more sort of attentive to the money

20:39

problem in the first place . So

20:42

we started with the idea of just how do we fund

20:45

these sort of like maintainers , and

20:47

it was very lucky that Vitalik

20:49

, zoe and Glenn had written this paper on like

20:51

quadratic funding , which was not originally

20:53

the intention of the grants tooling

20:56

. It was just let's get these maintainers some like funding

20:58

and magic internet money . That

21:01

seems like a good idea and

21:03

we just sort of realized this

21:06

is a much better way to do it . It ends up being actually

21:08

a great balance between . So , like you

21:10

know , rank the way quadratic

21:12

funding works in the short is just if

21:14

you have like ranked choice voting , you can decide . You

21:16

know , here are the top three choices I

21:18

have of things that should be done or people that should be funded

21:20

or whatever it might be . In

21:23

quadratic funding you're actually able to like

21:26

instead measure the intensity of your preference with

21:28

respect to each Potential

21:31

option . So you might say I

21:33

actually like , prefer option

21:36

to like Pretty

21:38

closely to like option one

21:40

, but option three is like way down here . So

21:42

I want to really like showcase in my my

21:45

vote that I actually really care about option

21:47

one and option two and what

21:50

it essentially , rather than just doing this

21:52

with , like you know , a sort of vote or voice

21:54

credit in quadratic funding is the

21:56

names would Suggests you're doing this with with

21:58

money , so you're having a say in the

22:00

project , but you're also in in turn by

22:03

having to say , giving them capital and , and

22:06

one of the benefits of this is not only that you get

22:08

this like granular expression of your

22:10

own preferences , but that

22:12

you get the ability to Fund

22:14

the project as you see fit and In

22:17

turn , if lots of people do this , one of the

22:19

nice properties of this particular model , it's

22:21

just that like you're sort of cool and I think

22:23

actually a lot of your listings might be familiar with this , so

22:25

I'll I'll stop here but like

22:27

you can actually collapse the preferences

22:29

in a way that makes sure that whales

22:31

or large funders are not , like you

22:34

know , like the corporation in that example , like Getting

22:36

way too much say in how the project

22:39

evolves or how the maintainer or

22:41

set of maintainers or ecosystem is

22:43

funded . So that's the TLDR

22:46

sort of how we ended up where we are with this quadratic funding

22:48

stuff . It's been a really long

22:50

road . There's a lot of stuff in between there in terms of models we

22:52

tried , different approaches we took , but

22:55

you know , the open source problem was kind of the the

22:57

main part of this . It just happened actually , that you

23:00

know , we've expanded beyond that because there's

23:02

other kinds of public goods that are in this category

23:04

, I'd say , of not just digital public

23:06

goods but global public goods that

23:08

are just not really well funded To

23:11

title together because of this coordination Failure

23:14

. You know , I think that's actually accurate in this

23:16

case , which has to do with the incentives

23:19

of each nation . They don't care about things

23:21

that are like beyond their borders . That's Maybe

23:24

, you know , spicy , but that's

23:26

sort of my take .

23:27

Yeah , I mean I think there's . I still feel that there's

23:29

definitely a power relationship

23:32

in the open source Question

23:34

as well , Just like I mean I

23:37

do think that corporations benefit

23:39

quite a lot from open source

23:41

Development

23:44

. Of course that's like I don't think that's like difficult

23:46

to To say otherwise

23:49

, just like the amount of open source that obviously

23:51

people use . Hold

23:54

on one second . What ? Sorry

23:57

, my my music

23:59

randomly turned on . Okay

24:03

, good news is I can't hear it .

24:04

Yeah , I was just really loud in my

24:06

head . But

24:09

yes , it's like the background it's . It's part

24:11

of the actual experience of like it's

24:13

. I hope it was like an I don't know , some kind

24:16

of maybe solemn

24:18

classical piece , just as you're talking about the dangers

24:21

of Corporate governance .

24:23

Do you want to know it was ? It was a Middle

24:25

Eastern house music . Actually , I

24:27

was like a play that sounds a lot more

24:29

interesting .

24:30

Actually , you send me that after .

24:57

Time . So

25:23

I was going to say that , like , I think so

25:25

. Corporations benefit a lot from this , like power

25:27

imbalance with developers

25:29

, people who want to develop open source code

25:31

, like hackers , people who want to work

25:34

on this stuff . If the states

25:36

were to fund

25:39

, you know , more consistently open

25:41

source software , then it would

25:43

potentially hurt corporations

25:46

from being able to exert

25:48

as much influence . There is the other

25:50

side , of course , on that , like if the states

25:52

is then prioritizing

25:56

what gets built and what doesn't , like I

25:59

don't know . People may make some sort of arguments

26:01

for or against that . I think it

26:03

just depends on the intentions

26:05

of the states , probably , but the intentions

26:07

of a corporation is usually pretty

26:09

much the same they want to make more money . To

26:12

me , I think there is still like it's still

26:14

a , it's also a

26:16

coordination problem , but it is also like one

26:19

that is bounded by power

26:21

relations , I guess in that sense

26:23

. But I think what you guys have done with Gitcoin

26:26

is kind of the power relations

26:28

are

26:30

there , I would say , but different . It

26:32

exists in a different way because it's more spread

26:35

out and how the money flows

26:37

, I guess .

26:38

Yeah , I mean I think that there's always like

26:40

you always have to be aware of those dynamics

26:43

, like with the state example . That's a good

26:45

one because , like I think it's obvious to people

26:47

generally speaking that like

26:49

hey , this big company is funding this thing . They

26:51

probably really care about it for

26:53

reasons that have to do with their bottom line

26:55

. We should probably figure out what those are and

26:58

like try and make sure that those things don't

27:00

like conflict with the overall goals

27:02

of like the project . But

27:04

, like with the state , I think people have the

27:06

expectation in a lot of places

27:08

that those kinds

27:11

of actors are . You

27:14

know , it's actually interesting when you

27:16

talk to especially folks from like say before about

27:18

crypto , like often

27:20

they'll say you

27:22

know , why don't we understand like the

27:25

problem ? Because , like when I

27:27

try , and you know , send this money

27:29

transfer , when I try and use this public

27:31

service , you know it just works , like it seems

27:34

fine . So people don't

27:36

really get it because the system hasn't like broken down

27:38

to an extent that , like you can see the cracks

27:40

and you can like start to like really feel the

27:43

difference in the quality of the system

27:45

. But like I do think that there's , you

27:49

know , problems with state funding as

27:51

well . But , by the way , I would love it if the state's funded open

27:53

source software more . I think that like that would be great

27:56

. I'm like for this . Alternatively

27:59

, it would be nice if , like , we had some

28:01

kind of , let's say , like more mutual assistance

28:03

, where people collectively decided

28:05

to like fund things themselves

28:08

on sort of a local , grassroots

28:10

basis , and that's sort of the idea of like quadratic

28:12

funding is , in a sense , it's

28:14

just like how do you figure out what that

28:16

group actually wants to do , and

28:19

then how do you like bubble those opinions

28:21

up so that you can like let other folks

28:23

kind of view them clearly

28:25

and then decide whether they want to support those

28:28

opinions themselves about , like what is important

28:30

in a given local community , and I think

28:32

that's something that is like not

28:35

really this kind of happens sometimes

28:37

, although not as much as it should , in like municipal

28:40

governments . This

28:43

is like usually something that people kind of make

28:45

fun of of , where , like you know , the one person goes

28:47

to town hall and like really complains about like the

28:49

stop sign or something . But like I do

28:51

think there's value to like that local

28:53

participation , which , which can happen because

28:55

there's like avenues for it in those environments

28:58

. There's not really as much of an avenue

29:00

for it in like a digital realm . That's

29:02

kind of the main problem . It's like in

29:05

or with any of these global problems , because this

29:07

, this scale , the abstraction of

29:09

the problem is so like high that like

29:11

to try and you know , go

29:14

like if you went to it like your , you know local

29:16

council person or whatever like the equivalent is , and

29:19

said , hey , like there's this library that I

29:21

use for this , like piece of software

29:23

that I'm writing , can you like help fix

29:25

this problem I have , they'd be like this is

29:27

nothing to do with , like my department

29:30

, and I think that's

29:32

where you sort of need to develop like

29:34

more parallel , like alternative systems

29:37

, like mutual assistance . Ideally , in my view

29:39

, that can facilitate this sort of work

29:41

, because otherwise it's

29:43

just going to take forever to get done . You know you

29:45

can make arguments about like the bureaucracy or problems

29:47

with the system or whatever you

29:49

want , but like the main problem is just that like there

29:52

isn't really anything being done

29:55

. So like I think

29:57

that's that's the kind of thing that is

29:59

is something that we don't want to just

30:01

like . I don't think it should be the only

30:03

organization doing this . That's actually a risk

30:06

in itself . Actually , if you can win the organization

30:09

, that's just like the funder of these

30:11

things . I think it has to be

30:13

like a broad community effort and

30:15

Ethereum's a nice like . There's a I won't go

30:17

into death , but like I think there's a nice sort of like way

30:20

to view Ethereum as its own ecosystem . People

30:22

talk about it as an ecosystem and it has

30:24

its own monetary base , which is , like , perhaps

30:26

one of the most important features because

30:29

it means that you actually have control over the

30:31

. You know things like the money supply and

30:33

things like the actual like economic model

30:35

, and I think that's kind

30:38

of a useful property of like . The

30:40

reason that Ethereum has been able to do more of

30:42

this open source funding than

30:45

like previous areas of the internet is

30:47

that we actually have this sort of like natural

30:49

, like internet native way to like

30:51

distribute value , but that's a whole

30:54

different . I won't go deep on that

30:56

quite yet .

30:57

Yeah . So the one of the things that has come out

31:00

of this on this , on this kind of thread that

31:02

you were , that you were pulling slightly , I mean one

31:04

. I think that Bitcoin is

31:06

an interesting evolution in

31:08

the Ethereum ecosystem . For me , I think

31:10

, just because in the beginning all

31:12

you had was sort of ICOs

31:15

or venture capital as , like

31:17

the ways that people get funding Maybe

31:19

there were some grants , programs

31:22

here and there , but it wasn't very big Gitcoin

31:24

made it sort of like a like it's

31:26

. It's like a way that people

31:28

can try and receive money that

31:31

doesn't have like these strings attached to them for

31:34

like , having a return , which is interesting

31:36

and I think , super necessary . Like there

31:39

has to be more Gitcoins

31:41

and variations of Gitcoins , I think

31:43

, in order for there to be much

31:45

, much less dependence

31:48

on venture capital in the crypto

31:50

world . That's like you know , that's like

31:52

straight up . I think crypto world should be get

31:54

away from venture capital as much as possible . But

31:58

one of the things that you guys did then is the

32:00

creation of the ALO protocol , which

32:03

is , I guess , like kind of like the open sourcing

32:05

of the protocol that Gitcoin itself

32:08

uses so that others can take it and

32:10

apply it to their own communities

32:12

or organizations or what have you . So

32:15

do you want to talk a bit about , about

32:17

ALO ?

32:19

Yeah , for sure , and actually I mean I will

32:21

say like I actually am

32:24

actually in agreement

32:26

on the need

32:28

for it , obviously , like grants , programs and so forth , but I

32:30

also think venture capital is

32:32

like not inherently

32:34

bad , which is probably the hottest take .

32:36

We'll disagree .

32:39

For the audience because , like

32:41

, here's the thing right , like , the original

32:44

sort of like vision of organizations

32:46

like Bell Labs or Xerox Park was very much

32:48

like having this sort of bundled

32:51

economic model right when and

32:53

this is sort of like , I think , something that maps

32:56

pretty well to like mutualist thinking

32:58

, solidarity economics and so forth

33:00

you have , like , okay

33:02

, the thing that is like the research initiative

33:05

that's going to like make you

33:07

know kind of like money eventually

33:09

, but it's like probably going to produce

33:11

all these other externalities that like are

33:13

not and you want to figure out , like

33:16

what is the way that you can and

33:18

this is actually something Vitalik's talked about too in the context

33:21

of like the sort of revenue evil curve but like

33:23

, how can you essentially take

33:25

the thing that

33:27

like can be monetized without like restricting

33:30

it or making it , like you know , less

33:32

accessible ideally , you

33:35

know as , as

33:37

you know , less less

33:40

accessible as possible ? Like

33:42

basically , how can you reduce the amount that it's going to be

33:44

like restricted by the

33:46

largest amount in order to make

33:49

sure that , like this thing is

33:51

monetized so that you

33:53

can go and fund other kinds of projects

33:55

that and subsidize projects that

33:57

would otherwise , if they were monetized

34:00

, be very much like like

34:03

excludable . There's

34:05

probably a better way to phrase this , which is like , basically

34:08

, how can you make sure that something like , say , in

34:11

a city you know , a

34:13

subway system can

34:16

make some form of money through

34:18

transactions ? You know , people

34:20

using the subway system like fees . This

34:22

is kind of like an August to Ethereum . You have

34:24

like the sort of subway system sort

34:26

of like transaction fees that are going and like funding

34:28

parts of the ecosystem you

34:31

know . In this case , they're , you know , not

34:34

being taken directly back into a

34:36

developer treasury . But I mean you could do this with , like

34:38

contract security revenue or other other

34:41

ideas which I would actually recommend people

34:43

look at . But like , how

34:45

can you make sure that things

34:47

like that , which are not

34:49

really heavily excludable

34:52

, based on a small fee , are

34:54

going and subsidizing , let's say , a patent or

34:56

like some other research initiative which can then

34:58

be opened up in a way where

35:00

, if it were not to be , it

35:02

would just be like totally restricted

35:05

, like closed off in a box and we're not

35:07

accessible to the community . And

35:09

I think that's the sort of piece of the puzzle

35:11

that the original

35:13

sort of conception of

35:15

venture capital in like the sort

35:17

of like post Xerox Park

35:19

, post Bell Labs era could have facilitated

35:21

. This is like my hot take

35:23

, but I think that it sort of failed

35:26

to do that over time through

35:29

perverse incentives and kind of this

35:31

like need for endless growth . And

35:33

I think that there's ways to change

35:36

that model by just flipping essentially

35:38

the dynamic between the

35:41

initial funders of a project . This is like what ICOs

35:43

did try to do right . It's like change the

35:45

dynamic between the initial funders

35:47

and the large

35:50

scale like eventual community for the project

35:53

and ideally , you know , you

35:55

could just eventually have these sorts of projects be like

35:57

funded by the community itself , shares

35:59

like or equivalent sort of like tokens be

36:01

given to like each project and

36:03

each member of each project , and then those people

36:06

being sort of like direct

36:08

, sort of like contributors to the project

36:10

over the long run through

36:12

not only their capital

36:15

contributions but also through like just

36:17

their direct sort of labor

36:19

in the project itself . This

36:22

is kind of like what happens now , when VCS

36:24

say like oh , but we are value add , we're going to do all

36:27

this stuff . It's going to be like amazing . I

36:29

think that like often falls short , partly

36:32

because you know they

36:34

are not really operating on

36:37

that model anymore and partly

36:39

because the size of these funds have

36:42

grown so large that it's

36:44

just impossible for them to really contribute to and

36:46

like be sort of like providers of

36:48

real labor in the projects

36:50

that they're sort of invested in . So

36:53

you know , I think there's a sort of active

36:55

like almost like activist

36:57

contributor model , which I know some other folks

36:59

have been sort of jamming on , that

37:02

could work a lot better but

37:04

still kind of ends up being somewhat

37:07

like similar to you or like isomorphic

37:09

to like the overall , like

37:11

venture capital quote unquote structure , in

37:13

the sense that it is looking for this return

37:15

, it is looking for this like eventual

37:18

surplus , and then this sort of solidarity

37:20

economics element of this is really fundamentally

37:22

that you want that to be redistributed back

37:24

into the community . You want to have some kind of

37:26

guarantee that this is not just going off

37:29

to , like you know , create a yacht

37:31

somewhere . It's going to like actually do

37:33

something back in the community , and so that's

37:35

like one thing I want to quickly note on

37:37

the VC side , because I do think that's

37:40

like a misunderstood element of this

37:42

sort of current maybe

37:45

not of the current landscape , it is the problem with the current

37:47

landscape but a misunderstood element of like the

37:49

original sort of idea of some of these research

37:51

institutions , like the labs .

37:54

I mean , yeah , I kind of think that there's

37:56

still like . For me , what

37:59

defines venture capital is really

38:01

like , I mean

38:03

mostly investment in tech products

38:06

or investment in the things that seem

38:08

like tech products but are actually just like I

38:10

don't know real estate companies like we work , and

38:14

this is huge expectation . Very true , though

38:16

, and this huge expectation of

38:18

return , that is like beyond . Like

38:23

venture capital used to be illegal

38:26

, like it was not legalized until

38:29

like fairly recently , like only a few decades

38:31

ago or something like that , and

38:34

it immediately created this kind of like . It

38:36

created the conditions for the tech

38:38

bubble and all these other types of bubble

38:41

, like financial speculative you

38:44

know periods of our

38:46

time and

38:49

like venture capital is it's

38:52

not a collective

38:54

investment firm , you know , it's

38:56

like a there's a few people trying

38:58

to make better returns than everyone else

39:00

that they can extract the value for themselves

39:03

. I think there is something to say

39:05

for like I think there is a spicy

39:07

take to say that there is . There

39:09

are similar things that a venture

39:11

capital firm , investment

39:14

firm , does , that like some

39:16

sort of collective

39:19

investments

39:22

firm , would do as well

39:24

. That makes sense . Or like even states , even a

39:26

state run , you know , social

39:28

wealth fund that invests in different things

39:30

would do similar things as a

39:32

venture capital investment firm . Just because there

39:34

is , like there are similarities in what you're trying

39:36

to do . It's just like how you're

39:39

whether that money or that return

39:41

that you're making is being extracted for yourself

39:43

or that's being reinvested

39:45

into , like whatever types of community

39:47

or collective projects , and so like I think

39:49

, like in an alternate reality

39:52

where the Dow actually worked , like

39:54

maybe that could have been something that it did

39:56

. It would have been like interesting .

39:58

Yeah .

39:59

It probably would have failed , but it would have

40:01

been like interesting to see how that went out . But

40:03

I do see , like I mean , gitcoin is still different

40:05

because , like it's like Gitcoin is not an investment

40:07

firm but it

40:09

is doing some form of like collective

40:12

investment without

40:15

necessarily the expectation of a return

40:17

, although , like I

40:19

think you can argue that , like

40:21

the , you know , the sponsors of the

40:24

quadratic pool are benefiting

40:26

from the growth of the

40:28

crypto ecosystem at large

40:31

. Perhaps , but it's they can't , like

40:33

you know , you can't say for sure , like me

40:36

, doing this will output this

40:38

return in the way that , like a venture capital

40:40

investment firm would like

40:42

make these calculations or something .

40:46

Yeah , absolutely , and I think that like , by the way

40:48

, like even one of the

40:50

one of the things that I'm like noting

40:52

here is like I'm using the term

40:55

venture capital just because , like that's the

40:57

term that people I think are aware of , I don't

40:59

think that's like you know , that

41:01

term comes with so much baggage , that , like that's why

41:03

I think it's a spicy thing to say , actually , it's not , it's

41:05

not always bad . But

41:08

I think that like , yeah , there's

41:10

sort of two components to this . One is , I think you want

41:12

more collective capital pools that are essentially

41:14

aimed at trying

41:17

to essentially like

41:19

like give non

41:21

dilutive , like , almost like free

41:23

capital to a project that's like at an early stage

41:25

. But you also want to weigh and this is sort of the

41:27

model that optimism is doing

41:29

, I think , a good job of like really stewarding , to

41:32

like reward people

41:34

who have gone

41:37

and created those types of projects that have then

41:39

gone on to be very successful in

41:41

the sense that they've been impactful in the ecosystem . You

41:44

want them to still be able to go and like actually

41:46

return , like you know

41:48

, basically receive

41:51

some kind of benefit that is commensurate with the

41:53

value they've created , and you

41:55

want that to probably be , I would say it be

41:57

true for the early

41:59

sort of sponsors essentially of that project

42:02

as well , who kind of in

42:04

a sense selflessly although you

42:06

know you can talk about the dynamics of if this becomes

42:09

a standard suddenly , does everyone expect

42:11

they're going to have all these returns

42:13

from you know going and giving to

42:15

grants ? This has actually happened in some of

42:17

the grants rounds in Bitcoin , where people have started

42:19

AirDrop farming to try and see if

42:21

they can , you know , catch sort of the next

42:23

, the next state optimism , which was in

42:26

one of the early grants rounds and did a distribution

42:28

back to the community . Can you , like you

42:31

know , in theory , run into this problem

42:33

with you know , sorry

42:35

, can you in theory , like you know , solve

42:37

some of these dynamics by giving that

42:39

incentive and

42:42

sort of like that return

42:44

back to people without

42:46

it being an expectation or

42:48

like a guarantee ? And I think that's

42:51

an interesting approach , I do think you

42:53

know separately , just having even

42:56

sort of a more cooperative model where people are just funding

42:58

the project themselves

43:01

with their community , with

43:03

the expectation that , yeah , it'll have a business model

43:05

, yeah , it'll have like some kind of like sustainability

43:07

. I think that's like

43:09

an approach that would be okay

43:11

in the sense that , even

43:13

with , you know , a

43:16

, an organization like like Dejardance

43:18

, obviously like one of the largest cooperatives , like they

43:21

are able to sustain themselves

43:23

because they're an insurance company

43:25

basically , but they are cooperatively owned and

43:28

they're providing essentially a service . That is like

43:30

then going back to cooperative members and

43:33

I would argue that like that sort of model is

43:35

still relatively mutualist

43:37

in you know , the same

43:39

sort of way that we would want to see with

43:42

organizations and web three . It's just that like there's

43:45

all this other mess of like bureaucracy

43:47

and general sort of you

43:49

know attachment to the existing financial system

43:51

that something like Dejardance probably you

43:53

know , makes it a less compelling

43:55

representative of the sort of like cooperative

43:58

movement , and so

44:01

that's sort of you know . I

44:03

think my take on the

44:08

question to me is like how

44:11

do we create sustainable models that

44:13

are iterating on the

44:15

like notion of venture capital but

44:18

still retain this notion

44:20

of one

44:23

sustainability of the project and two of

44:25

sort of meaningful returns , surplus

44:28

, essentially ? And if you get those two things

44:30

right , I think you can create

44:32

a networked sort of like more mutualist

44:34

economy , because these projects can start

44:36

to sustain each other and , in the way that I was

44:38

mentioning sort of before , you

44:41

can have this sort of you know , tax

44:44

, let's say , on something congestible

44:46

like the subway system , in order to

44:48

subsidize the increasing return

44:50

of , say , what would otherwise be

44:52

a closed patent that's

44:54

not producing positive externalities through being

44:57

sort of left open , you know , to

44:59

the broader ecosystem . But I

45:02

also want to make a distinction between

45:04

venture capital and early

45:07

stage funding as a concept

45:09

. I think projects should be encouraged

45:12

to pursue community

45:14

ownership more seriously and I think

45:16

investors should be

45:18

more incentivized to

45:20

cap the returns that they're taking

45:22

in order to facilitate that community ownership

45:25

. And I think this is not something

45:27

that's possible with the current model because

45:30

of mostly winner . Take all dynamics and

45:32

sort of like the fact that you

45:35

know VCs are essentially passively investing

45:37

in all these projects

45:39

and aren't able to continuously

45:41

gain rewards from actually participating

45:44

and working with each project

45:46

that they're investing in . And

45:48

I think this is something that you can sort of fix

45:51

in the current VC model

45:53

by sort of taking the premise that you

45:55

are really part of the team , you

45:58

are part of the community and you are working

46:01

with them , hopefully for

46:03

the next , you know , 10 plus

46:05

years . And if you take that

46:07

position , you know you can't

46:09

take as many investments . You have

46:11

limits on your time , you have limits on your

46:13

capacity and you can't expect

46:15

thousand X you know billion

46:18

dollar returns , but you can't

46:20

expect that you're going

46:22

to have more sustainable , more

46:24

long-term oriented projects

46:26

and , fundamentally , more

46:29

mutualist projects , and I think that's the piece that

46:32

the space should also

46:34

try to consider .

46:35

Yeah , I mean , yeah , I think we agree broadly

46:37

, I think you know , and the

46:39

Aloe protocol I think is just an

46:42

interesting development to

46:44

see how people take it and

46:46

maybe modify it for slightly

46:50

different ends or like slightly different , using

46:52

slightly different mechanisms , using the protocol

46:54

itself .

46:57

Yeah , and so to answer the because

46:59

I know you asked that like that at

47:01

this point , to answer the question

47:03

about Aloe , like I think the interesting part about

47:05

that system is

47:07

it kind of goes back to the point earlier

47:10

like you know , gikwinsh shouldn't be the only funder

47:12

of these things , you

47:14

know . Similarly , I don't think that you

47:16

know if we're even saying venture

47:18

capital is good , like if I'm making that claim

47:20

, I don't think that , like A16Z should

47:23

be like the only funder of these things . I think the fact that we have

47:25

these like large billion dollar plus funds is actually like

47:27

net negative . It like creates really

47:29

weird market dynamics and like all these adverse

47:32

sort of like selection problems . But

47:36

like I do think that

47:39

having sort of all these different local communities

47:41

that have their own sort of like various

47:43

mechanisms they can choose from which , like

47:45

Aloe , is sort of like aiming to help facilitate

47:47

that , allow them to fund their own sort

47:49

of shared needs , their own ideas and

47:51

their own sort of community initiatives . That

47:54

, to me , is the piece that I

47:56

think is currently

47:58

missing from our conception of

48:00

gonna tie this all the way back to like the movement

48:03

piece , like what web three , what like

48:05

crypto , is trying to accomplish . And

48:08

what I mean is , if you look at the

48:11

history of crypto , it's a lot of speculation

48:13

, it's a lot of like DeFi , it's a lot of like more

48:15

recently , like NFT

48:17

shilling sometimes

48:19

disguised as like artist

48:23

sort of community support it and

48:26

I think that's like probably

48:28

not

48:31

net negative but is like directionally

48:33

in terms of the movement , in

48:35

terms of the technology , I think interesting and provides

48:38

a lot of like new , evolutionary sort

48:40

of like primitives that are eventually

48:42

gonna do some cool stuff

48:45

. But I think in terms of

48:47

the movement , those things are less

48:49

interesting and perhaps less impactful

48:52

than just providing primitives for people

48:54

to actually engage

48:56

with and like sort of coordinate

48:59

around their own shared community . And

49:01

that's where you can start to be more like tangible about

49:04

the actual impact that this

49:07

stuff is having , because you're not just talking about like

49:09

the web three ecosystem or the crypto ecosystem

49:11

. You're talking

49:13

about a tech community

49:16

in Lagos . You're talking about like a

49:18

community currency in Oakland . You're talking about like

49:21

actual sort of people using

49:24

this in their daily lives . Now

49:26

, to be sure , we need a lot more actual

49:28

improvements in like UX and overall

49:30

sort of usability of crypto . For example

49:33

, account abstraction is like a great step towards

49:35

this to me for this to be actually useful . They're people

49:37

that are probably gonna

49:39

like not wanna just store $2,000

49:43

on like their phone to walk

49:46

around with and try

49:48

and transact with on a daily basis . But

49:51

I do think there's like we're

49:54

starting to see , with things like

49:56

Aloe and other sort of tools , this ecosystem

49:58

of projects for them , in this

50:00

general movement around sort of , I

50:04

guess , something that like folks have

50:06

now called like regenerative or like more

50:08

sort of impact focused sort

50:11

of applications starting to form .

50:13

Yeah , so we've talked about

50:15

funding . Another thing that I wanna talk about

50:17

with you is DAOs

50:20

, because Gitcoin is , I

50:22

mean , one of the , I guess , larger DAOs

50:24

out there and

50:27

you were part of the process , of course , like being

50:29

the founder or being one of the founders and

50:31

then going through the process of turning it into a DAO . Do

50:34

you wanna talk about that process a

50:36

bit and , like I

50:39

don't know your thoughts on DAOs now after

50:41

like really exerting

50:43

a lot of like effort and labor into

50:45

making that happen and kind of the the

50:49

difficulties that were involved with that , since I

50:51

think there's a lot of people interested

50:53

in crypto who , like they have an idea for

50:55

an organization , they want to build it and then they

50:58

want to like turn it into a DAO . It's like what

51:00

are the things that people

51:02

should expect if they want to take on such

51:04

a task ?

51:06

Oh man , I mean I think that there's

51:08

lots of really interesting parts

51:10

of what DAOs can accomplish

51:12

, and then there's a

51:14

lot of just the

51:17

bumps along the way that I think people maybe don't prepare

51:19

for necessarily , maybe

51:22

don't talk about . Or in

51:24

the bull market , people didn't talk about them . Now that it's a bear

51:26

market , I think everyone kind of like talks

51:28

about everything being , you

51:31

know , worse or

51:33

less impactful than it was . Yeah

51:35

, it kind of swings in you

51:37

know extremes . People like either like everything's

51:40

gonna be an amazing utopia or everything

51:42

is immediately going to , like you

51:45

know , fall apart , and I think it's

51:47

. The truth is probably somewhere in between

51:49

. But I think that what

51:51

I like about DAOs is that

51:54

you didn't really have sort of

51:56

internet native mechanisms for

51:58

distributing value to

52:00

groups of contributors in a way that was , like one

52:04

, relatively seamless and transparent , but two also

52:06

that allowed for these

52:09

other less common , more

52:11

equitable structures , say cooperatives , that

52:14

otherwise would be a pain to

52:16

instantiate locally

52:18

, let alone across

52:20

all these contributors from all

52:22

over the world , and I think that the

52:25

ability to do that now in the Ethereum

52:27

space is actually quite novel

52:30

and quite useful , even

52:32

in cases that might

52:34

eventually just be real world cooperatives . I

52:37

think the other piece of this that's

52:39

interesting about DAOZ is a

52:42

lot of these sorts of projects

52:44

can actually do

52:46

this with their own currencies

52:49

. They can do this with currencies that reflect

52:51

their internal values . They reflect the

52:54

goals that they're trying to accomplish . They also

52:56

reflect their internal

52:59

economic or social

53:01

principles and those are things that

53:03

I think were not really very

53:07

easy to do

53:09

at scale . In other cases

53:11

you had community currency experiments in the

53:13

past , even back

53:16

hundreds and hundreds of years , but especially in

53:18

the 70s and 80s I think there

53:20

was a pretty famous experiment in Ireland in

53:23

the 80s . Those are

53:25

, I think , the prototypes

53:27

of what I hope DAOZ can

53:30

accomplish and become in

53:33

the next cycle . But

53:35

the downside of DAOZ is

53:38

that there's lots

53:40

of great history on best

53:43

practices for organizations , tradeoffs

53:45

between efficiency and

53:47

resilience of organizations , tradeoffs between

53:50

scale and overall

53:52

alignment , tradeoffs between

53:54

the amount

53:56

of this is the good

53:58

hearts law part the amount of

54:01

measurements or KPIs you

54:03

put in place and the propensity

54:05

of your organization to overfit on

54:08

certain objectives . That are metrics

54:10

that are hit . The downside

54:14

of DAOZ in those contexts I think

54:16

are only now being resolved

54:18

and it probably took the

54:21

ecosystem on the whole

54:23

two , three years

54:26

to realize those things . But

54:28

I think one of the downsides is it's

54:31

a new term , it's a new concept , it's a new

54:33

design space

54:35

, and so people forget that

54:38

there was other stuff that previously

54:40

existed that we could draw from in

54:42

terms of approaches or models . So

54:45

that's the downside . I think

54:47

that the good part of DAOZ is we should

54:49

use them to create new types of

54:51

organizations that are actually aiming

54:54

towards globally distributed common

54:56

goals . The downside

54:59

of DAOZ is that you still have to do

55:01

a lot of organization . You still have to

55:03

actually do all this coordination , and that

55:05

is the part of coordination that I think is really

55:07

the emphasis actually

55:10

is this change

55:12

from

55:14

you all hanging out in a

55:17

small garage the meme

55:19

of the startup in the Silicon

55:21

Valley era to

55:23

, okay , we have this online community

55:26

that we're all

55:28

coordinating around and we're all

55:30

trying to engage and make

55:32

sure it's heard . And how do

55:34

we make sure we do that in a way that is

55:36

consistent and

55:38

also leads to long-term sustainability

55:42

of the project , maintenance of core

55:45

tooling , maintenance

55:48

of the initial values and

55:53

mission . These are all things that I think

55:55

, again , a lot of historical literature on organizational

55:59

design has addressed and solves

56:01

for , but I think it's something

56:04

that is what

56:07

I hope , that DAOZ can

56:09

sort of quote unquote , bring online or I guess

56:11

, as people would say , now , bring

56:13

on chain , although

56:16

we have to define what that term means , I

56:19

think , more clearly . So

56:22

that's , I guess , at a high level

56:24

. I think DAOZ are pretty cool . I like DAOZ . I think

56:26

we have

56:29

seen a lot of the benefits

56:31

of the DAOZ through just

56:34

the fact that we've now shipped this

56:36

protocol . This community has now grown

56:39

and I've also been able to step away from

56:41

the DAOZ myself with

56:44

relative confidence in

56:46

the team and the community that

56:48

is operating it , and

56:51

I think that's something that is pretty

56:54

interesting , because it's a hard thing

56:56

to do , probably in even

56:58

a regular organization , and I think

57:00

the fact that we've been able to sort of see that in the context

57:03

of the DAOZ being sort of

57:05

like to me a sign that they

57:07

can work , but I

57:10

don't think that's a

57:12

sign that they're perfect . I think there's still

57:14

a ton of organizational

57:17

debt that probably be every

57:20

DAOZ , including ours , is still , like you

57:22

know , making sure we're recovering .

57:25

So I guess it's a good thing you

57:27

still like DAOZ after trying to make

57:29

one .

57:33

I feel like that's actually like probably another hot take

57:35

. I don't know if that's spicy . I feel like there's a lot of people

57:37

that have written , especially in this market , like a lot

57:39

of like much spicier , spicier

57:41

pieces on like how DAOZ are , you

57:43

know , doomed , or like DAOZ

57:46

are over . Same with tokens . The people

57:48

are like very garish on anything to do with the token . Now

57:51

it's like as if this

57:53

hasn't had like multiple cycles

57:56

and iterations of token models

57:58

that people have like written

58:00

you know books and tons

58:02

of like literature on

58:04

. But I do think it's like

58:06

it is a good sign . Yeah

58:09

, feel free to edit this part

58:11

out . I'm just kind of rambling here . It's like

58:13

we'll cut this .

58:14

Well , I mean , I think what is interesting

58:18

is that and I've said this like multiple

58:20

times before , but like how I've witnessed

58:22

, kind of like the people who are interested in DAOZ

58:24

online sort of like more and more

58:26

become interested as

58:28

they try to do a DAO in like a very idealistic

58:31

sense and where it usually kind of fails

58:33

, and then look into , oh

58:36

, cooperatives have already done similar

58:38

things or oh , there's already been you

58:40

know people thinking about decentralized organizing

58:44

and what does that mean ? I think there

58:46

wasn't this , because

58:48

a lot of people came from , you know

58:50

, I don't know traditional

58:52

working corporate backgrounds , that

58:54

the I think it wasn't internalized

58:57

, like the real difference with

58:59

having you know reporting to your manager

59:02

and this like centralized pyramid

59:04

hierarchy , versus you know , a

59:06

DAO which is , in the most idealistic sense

59:08

, like the kind of organization that's owned by

59:11

a whole lot more people and that has a

59:13

lot more decentralized

59:15

structure of ownership . And this

59:17

different structure

59:20

of ownership requires a different

59:23

form of relating with

59:25

one another and acting towards one another

59:27

than a centralized one . And

59:30

yeah , this is it's not a new problem , but it's

59:32

like a problem

59:35

that's still . I think we need to figure out

59:37

or get better at doing so

59:39

that we can then socially reproduce

59:42

more organizations that are more

59:46

democratically run and democratically owned

59:48

. So that , to me , is

59:50

why DAOZ are interesting . It's giving

59:53

that space for people to experiment

59:55

. Mostly fail , I think , in the beginning , but at least experiment

59:59

so that they can . That's like the only way they're going to get to the point where we

1:00:01

can do it more

1:00:03

more frequently .

1:00:04

The pro of this . Like there's like these death and rebirth cycles , which

1:00:07

I was saying like our bad in the sense that

1:00:10

you know , daoz are this blank canvas that we can like

1:00:13

kind of work off of , and people take that to mean like

1:00:15

let's just like try all the things you

1:00:17

know again that people have like already gotten

1:00:20

a you know a decent handle on . But I think

1:00:22

that the the

1:00:25

sort of like benefit of that is that you

1:00:27

get the ability to run way more experiments in

1:00:31

parallel like much faster , and

1:00:33

if you can collectively like learn from those experiments and

1:00:35

also like collectively share value between

1:00:37

those experiments , this kind of goes back to like

1:00:39

you know , in

1:00:41

my view , like why you need this ability

1:00:43

to share value like as an ecosystem and like return

1:00:46

value as an ecosystem . Like I think that

1:00:48

can be something that's useful for you know , for

1:00:51

the long run , none of the you

1:00:53

know crypto TM sort of space

1:00:55

, but also just like of the way we organize

1:00:57

generally . The

1:01:00

other point I'll mention on that just quickly is like I

1:01:04

think one of the things that we're unlearning

1:01:06

through the process of creating DAOZ just

1:01:08

as a space is . We

1:01:11

historically are very , I think , yeah

1:01:13

, used to hierarchy . We're used to like the

1:01:16

notion of like , to your point , having

1:01:18

a manager , and I think it's

1:01:20

actually very hard to unlearn that for

1:01:23

a lot of people . We

1:01:25

sort of have like being trained to like have less

1:01:27

agency , I think generally , and what

1:01:30

that means in practice is that , like you

1:01:32

, sort of you know , people

1:01:34

will like join a channel or , like you

1:01:36

know , join initiative , and they'll be like , okay

1:01:38

, like I'm here , like please give me

1:01:40

, like you know , the full rundown on everything

1:01:43

that , like I should be doing . And people

1:01:45

are like like wait , who are you ? Like , what

1:01:48

are we doing here ? Like and

1:01:50

I think that's the

1:01:52

sort of challenge is to get people to unlearn

1:01:55

this sort of like sense of needing

1:01:59

to be , you know , instructed

1:02:01

, needing to be like managed Not

1:02:03

that management is necessarily always bad Like I think it's

1:02:05

a dissonance to these things , right

1:02:07

, and I think that there's

1:02:10

one thing I want to just like make sure people read

1:02:12

. That is like for me an inspiration

1:02:15

on this , which is Ivan Ilich has a

1:02:17

few books on this , but like de-schooling society

1:02:20

is one in particular I think is like really great

1:02:22

in terms of sort of articulating the way

1:02:24

we have abstracted , sort of like what

1:02:26

we're previously like way back

1:02:28

, you know , like personal

1:02:30

relationships with each other , to

1:02:33

more institutional , abstracted

1:02:36

sort of bodies that you

1:02:38

know , and what that's done over time

1:02:41

is has essentially been like it's

1:02:43

created this , this sense of like

1:02:45

learned helplessness , I think , unfortunately

1:02:48

, in like a way that we can probably

1:02:50

, you know , and I see people recovering

1:02:52

like it from , like and kind of like

1:02:54

improving from , but it's , like , I

1:02:57

think , still fundamentally a

1:02:59

challenge , especially because , you

1:03:02

know , all of us still exist in

1:03:05

a quote unquote real world where these

1:03:08

are still the standard modes of operating

1:03:10

. We haven't really changed any of that yet

1:03:12

. So I think that's

1:03:14

just a super important like part of

1:03:16

and like , maybe , like you know

1:03:18

, in addition to the fact that you

1:03:20

have this like benefit of experimentation

1:03:23

and sort of like this iteration on new ideas

1:03:25

and models and

1:03:27

this sort of like you know , change

1:03:29

in the way that we're thinking about , like organizational structure

1:03:32

and your own agency . I think there's also maybe

1:03:34

like just ideally

1:03:37

, benefits to just our realization

1:03:41

that this is all kind of made up , that

1:03:43

, like all these other pieces of like organizational

1:03:46

, you know , structure that have existed

1:03:48

are just building blocks that you can

1:03:50

choose basically to use

1:03:52

, based on context and based on , like , whether

1:03:54

or not they fit what you're trying to accomplish

1:03:56

. You should still know what the building blocks are

1:03:58

, but , like you can use them in ways

1:04:01

that are much more like sort

1:04:03

of modular , configurable , based on your actual

1:04:05

, your actual needs . And I think even

1:04:08

just that like psychological , social

1:04:10

realization that crypto is allowed people to have about

1:04:13

like , oh yeah , like the world is just

1:04:15

like made by people and I'm a person

1:04:17

and I can make and I can make things , is

1:04:20

like , I think , a useful

1:04:22

shift . That didn't

1:04:24

really happen , you know , in

1:04:26

wasn't , wasn't a really a big part of the

1:04:28

conversation , I think , in the past sort of decades .

1:04:30

Yeah , I think . I think I think it was Graber

1:04:33

that said like the secret , like the

1:04:35

great secret of the world or something like that , is that

1:04:37

you can change it . I'm

1:04:39

definitely bushing it , but something like that yeah

1:04:42

yeah , it was .

1:04:42

I think it's from . So

1:04:45

from utopia of rules it might be from , but

1:04:47

yeah , it's like the great secret of the world is

1:04:50

that you know it's

1:04:53

. Yeah , let's cut this part

1:04:55

out . I'm gonna follow that . I

1:04:57

think you got it .

1:04:58

Yeah .

1:04:58

I don't have a better way to phrase it than you . I don't

1:05:00

remember either actually

1:05:03

.

1:05:04

But so the newest

1:05:06

project that you've undertaken

1:05:08

since now you're kind of phasing out

1:05:10

of Gitcoin and pursuing this

1:05:12

new thing called public works Would

1:05:15

you talk ? Would you like to talk a bit about that

1:05:17

, and what are the goals of that project ?

1:05:20

Yeah , absolutely , and I mean , you know this might

1:05:22

be part of the reason that I'm like interested in at

1:05:25

least to some extent defending the

1:05:27

notion of investment . I

1:05:29

think that , ultimately , the

1:05:32

goal of public works is to showcase that there

1:05:34

are certain types of infrastructure , that

1:05:36

one we're missing in the space , in

1:05:39

a world where even you know , as I was saying , what we need more

1:05:41

is for real world adoption , but , like one of the

1:05:43

ways you do that is by creating tools

1:05:46

that make that

1:05:48

adoption easier . So , like an example would

1:05:50

be in like previous cycle , like I think WallConnect

1:05:53

played a critical role in things like Rainbow

1:05:55

being widely adopted , which played a critical role

1:05:58

in things like NFT marketplaces being used . And

1:06:00

although I don't always agree with like the way

1:06:02

those NFT marketplaces were used , it

1:06:04

was still like pretty important that you had this sort of like

1:06:06

fundamental building block . In the case

1:06:09

of WallConnect that led to people wanting

1:06:11

to actually interact

1:06:14

with crypto at all . And so

1:06:16

I think in the next sort of cycle there's other types of infrastructure

1:06:19

like that which

1:06:21

have now sort of become , I think , talking points that other people can

1:06:23

cover in more depth . They've become

1:06:26

sort of memes in the space in their own right , but things like

1:06:28

account abstraction , things like intense

1:06:30

space tooling , things like

1:06:32

better , even just developer tooling , have

1:06:35

become parts of , I

1:06:37

think , a conversation that is

1:06:39

sort of split

1:06:42

between . You know , hey , we like

1:06:45

have more than

1:06:47

enough infrastructure . You know why

1:06:49

are we building more sort of the same thing ? And this is kind of

1:06:52

true sometimes with , like some of the infrastructure , like we just probably

1:06:55

don't need more block space at this point . I don't know why we keep creating

1:06:57

more block space

1:06:59

. Again , exceptions to

1:07:01

probably everything . But

1:07:04

there's also a question of , you know , on the other

1:07:07

hand , like what are the sort of missing core

1:07:09

pieces of the tech tree ? You know , if we sort of think

1:07:11

of it that way that , like we need to actually get to

1:07:14

some you know sort of math adoption

1:07:16

in the future , and I think , of

1:07:18

those ones I mentioned , like account distractions probably the most tangible

1:07:21

where people , I do think , really

1:07:23

understand that this is kind of necessary . And

1:07:28

so the goal of public works , in a way

1:07:30

, is to be able to actually like invest

1:07:33

in these sorts of projects , but

1:07:35

to sort of encourage them ideally to

1:07:37

like exit to community in

1:07:39

a way that is , you know , as I was mentioning

1:07:42

, more in line with the sort of mutualist

1:07:44

framing of the way that community

1:07:47

ownership and sort of community

1:07:49

investment should work . And I think that

1:07:51

this is a very tricky thing

1:07:53

to do properly , but , like , if done right

1:07:55

, this can hopefully reframe the way that we view

1:07:58

things like venture capital today

1:08:00

, because , again , like , I don't

1:08:02

think venture capital is inherently

1:08:04

bad . I know we're going to disagree

1:08:06

on that , I also think there's a

1:08:08

lot of nuance to that , but

1:08:10

I do think that venture

1:08:13

capital as it exists today is

1:08:15

pretty broken and is largely

1:08:17

reliant on , like a

1:08:20

handful of you know smaller organizations

1:08:22

that are basically just

1:08:24

trying to like get projects

1:08:27

to like you know billion dollar plus

1:08:29

valuations , and are trying to essentially , you

1:08:32

know , create winner , take all like monopolistic

1:08:34

markets , rather than trying

1:08:36

to create , like pluralistic

1:08:38

sets of infrastructure that are more modular , that

1:08:40

people can like actually kind

1:08:43

of work together on and ideally

1:08:45

, you know , essentially invest

1:08:48

together on . And I think that this

1:08:50

is , by the way , like

1:08:52

I guess I should state , because I

1:08:54

don't know , like you know , I'm not in the

1:08:57

US , but I don't mean invest

1:08:59

here necessarily in the sense of

1:09:01

a financial or , you know , economic contract

1:09:05

, I mean in the sense of having some kind of governance stake over the project

1:09:07

itself , et cetera , et cetera . That's

1:09:10

just my disclaimer , because who knows how the US

1:09:12

regulatory environment will actually

1:09:14

end up . But I do

1:09:16

think my point is that , like

1:09:19

, if you can reframe this model and change some

1:09:21

of those functions and like features of existing

1:09:23

VC , then you

1:09:25

can sort of at least start

1:09:27

incrementally improving the sort

1:09:30

of path to this like

1:09:32

fully sort of peer to peer ecosystem which

1:09:34

, by the way , like I would actually argue

1:09:36

in some ways that , like we sort

1:09:38

of had closer to in the ICO era . There

1:09:41

was way less accountability to projects in the ICO era , but

1:09:43

at least we had sort of like direct community investment

1:09:45

. Probably

1:09:47

legally you couldn't do that today , but

1:09:49

like I think that this

1:09:52

sort of is something that

1:09:54

will naturally , I

1:09:56

think , need to be facilitated

1:10:00

by at least some key players . It's not

1:10:02

something that will like happen on

1:10:05

its own , because the

1:10:07

existing forces in the market are just so large

1:10:09

at this point and like so like kind of like

1:10:11

oligopolistic , that like it's

1:10:14

hard to imagine tons of new

1:10:16

entrants coming in to like basically

1:10:18

help pull projects from

1:10:20

this sort of like venture capital pipeline to

1:10:22

a more community oriented pipeline

1:10:25

without like some kind of

1:10:27

interference or some kind of like

1:10:29

engagement . And

1:10:31

, and I think that's like probably

1:10:33

something that on our own , as

1:10:36

a sort of fund , we can't like

1:10:39

we can't accomplish that like as me

1:10:41

and , like you know , do other people . I

1:10:44

think we can accomplish that

1:10:46

if we pluralistically get lots

1:10:48

of smaller groups engaged

1:10:50

on this idea , and that's where

1:10:52

I hope that we can sort of like start to spread the message

1:10:54

and start to get people engaged . I've

1:10:57

actually had a lot of conversations with folks

1:10:59

who are interested in sort of like this activist

1:11:02

contributor model , folks that are interested in

1:11:04

sort of broader approach to like

1:11:06

early funding , and I do think that

1:11:09

there's sort of a movement starting here

1:11:11

. But it's a

1:11:13

bit of an uphill battle , right , because on the one hand , you

1:11:16

know to your point , people hate venture capital

1:11:18

or anything that's like associated with like early

1:11:20

stage funding , which

1:11:22

has some kind of like economic arrangement . On

1:11:25

the other hand , you have

1:11:27

people that you

1:11:29

know , I think , are reluctant

1:11:33

to

1:11:35

change their

1:11:37

sort of ways or like or adjust

1:11:39

their models , because you know the large funds , these large

1:11:41

organizations are doing perfectly well , yeah , they're

1:11:43

benefiting from it anyways . Sort

1:11:45

of in their current state . Yeah , so

1:11:48

it's a question of like , I think you know what we're

1:11:50

trying to do is really just like , very

1:11:53

simply like , invest in ecosystem infrastructure that will

1:11:55

be useful for , like , hopefully

1:11:58

, like this next wave of actual adoption . But

1:12:01

I think the bigger question is , like how

1:12:03

do we actually restructure the way that , like , capital

1:12:06

flows in this space , which is

1:12:08

like going to be , for at least

1:12:11

the foreseeable future , quite heavily

1:12:13

financialized , and then how

1:12:15

can we slowly shift towards a model where

1:12:17

we're actually valuing labor and valuing contribution

1:12:19

, especially

1:12:22

in an early stage , more , and

1:12:24

so it's , it's tricky , it's like , you

1:12:26

know , I think it's a , it's

1:12:28

a probably , it's probably

1:12:30

too early to tell exactly how that will actually play out . But to me

1:12:34

, this is something that I think is has been

1:12:36

sort of on my mind for a while , because we actually saw

1:12:39

this with Bitcoin

1:12:41

early on , where you had projects like Uniswap or projects

1:12:44

like Optimism or

1:12:46

projects like Xdai

1:12:48

, which did , you

1:12:50

know , I think , the right thing in the context that they were in

1:12:52

. They

1:12:54

raised , you know , capital

1:12:57

to like increasingly grow with the community , grow

1:12:59

with the ecosystem that they

1:13:01

were building . At the same time

1:13:03

, I think that , like , generally

1:13:06

, you

1:13:08

know the sort of like early

1:13:11

supporters of those projects

1:13:13

may not have , like

1:13:15

you know , wanted them to go and , you know , raise

1:13:19

excessive venture capital rounds , only to , like

1:13:21

sort of exit to community three , four years down

1:13:24

the road . And that , to me , is

1:13:26

the thing that , like , we're

1:13:28

already so , like my point is essentially we're already seeing

1:13:30

this happen , like we already saw

1:13:32

this play out , and now sort of we're in

1:13:35

this lull , I

1:13:37

think , as people sort of recover

1:13:39

from the insanity that just happened in 2021 , 2022

1:13:42

. How can we

1:13:44

make sure that , like in 2024 , 2025

1:13:47

, there's not the same dynamic

1:13:50

? And again , you know , spicy

1:13:53

take , I think it's going to be like controversial , I

1:13:55

think it's going to be interesting and

1:13:58

I'm excited for it because I think I

1:14:01

think it's necessary .

1:14:04

Yeah , I mean , like , when I think

1:14:06

of venture capital , I think I have a very specific

1:14:09

like image in my head

1:14:11

of what that is and

1:14:13

what that looks like when I , when I talk about it , I've

1:14:15

definitely I've met , you

1:14:18

know , especially recently , just because of all the conferences I've

1:14:20

been going to , like meeting all these VC

1:14:22

people that I mean don't look like

1:14:24

they're VCs in the first place . They're like they're

1:14:26

like not suits , I guess , and they're like

1:14:29

you know they talk about how they

1:14:31

want collective , like they're that they

1:14:33

themselves are interested in , like collective ownership

1:14:35

, and that's why they invest in crypto and like whatever

1:14:38

, like more , think they're like more

1:14:40

progressive causes , I guess , through their venture capital

1:14:42

. I guess I'm pretty

1:14:45

skeptical that it will all

1:14:47

turn out okay . Just considering

1:14:49

like larger incentives of the system

1:14:51

. I think that there will be . I

1:14:53

think there could be certainly like some important

1:14:56

wins with a kind of like strategic

1:14:58

, very strategic , very

1:15:00

like not succumbing to like mullock

1:15:04

, maybe with this

1:15:06

like venture capital investment . That could be pretty

1:15:08

good . Yeah , like to me

1:15:10

, like I want . I want like a

1:15:13

giant system where people are all

1:15:15

able to collectively decide where we want

1:15:17

to put our collective capital towards

1:15:19

places to grow , you know , the system

1:15:21

larger which I think is what a lot

1:15:23

of people want is just like not

1:15:25

an easy thing to to organize

1:15:27

and create . I think that's good . That's going to take

1:15:30

a huge effort probably .

1:15:32

Yeah , I mean I think , like most people

1:15:34

in the sort of same section

1:15:36

of crypto , that like we're in , I

1:15:38

think want that . I think the

1:15:40

hard part is , like you know , kind

1:15:43

of follow through on the

1:15:45

results , and I think that , like the

1:15:48

hardest part is like to

1:15:50

your point , like you know , the sort of people in crypto

1:15:52

conferences that are like saying that like I think a question

1:15:54

to me is like you know , how

1:15:56

much are you like saying things versus

1:15:59

like living those values , which is like a

1:16:01

constant challenge in the space . Like I think a lot of people

1:16:03

like have perspectives on

1:16:05

things , Like a lot of people have opinions , you

1:16:08

know , including easy to have

1:16:11

opinions , but it's harder to like make sort of

1:16:13

actions , take action that like actually

1:16:16

furthers those opinions

1:16:18

in a meaningful way . I

1:16:20

think this is like one of the reasons I've like been

1:16:22

a little bit less active on , like you know , twitter

1:16:26

, like any equivalents , is just

1:16:28

like I think there's a lot of you

1:16:30

know , a lot of distance

1:16:32

between the people

1:16:34

that are like really actively building and the people that are like have

1:16:37

opinions , and

1:16:40

I think that like that's like also

1:16:43

again nuance to that like I think there's lots of great

1:16:45

people on those too . But like that

1:16:47

to me is something

1:16:49

that like I think needs

1:16:51

to just like take time to play out and

1:16:54

I hope that like this sort of this

1:16:57

sort of end goal here is that we get to essentially

1:16:59

much more of a peer to peer system . To be honest

1:17:01

, if we could just like recreate , you

1:17:03

know , better versions of

1:17:06

like the sort of like

1:17:08

initial , like capital , neighbor

1:17:10

, contributor model like that like something

1:17:13

like an ICO created , I

1:17:15

think that actually could be like much

1:17:17

more interesting . The problem is mostly

1:17:19

making that happen in a way

1:17:21

that doesn't lead to like either people in

1:17:24

jail or people like

1:17:26

generally sort of finding

1:17:28

ways to game that system

1:17:30

. Yeah , at least right

1:17:33

now , and so I think that , like that

1:17:35

sort of that's the path we're on , but

1:17:37

I think that it'll take some time to

1:17:40

get there . The organization I would mention , by the way , that

1:17:42

I think is like actually interesting

1:17:45

to view from a like more

1:17:47

mutualist , anarchist perspective on

1:17:50

this , would be like C4SS , right , like I

1:17:52

think they sort of have a much

1:17:54

more market based perspective on like

1:17:56

, more still

1:17:58

like mutualist , like

1:18:01

market based anarchism

1:18:03

, and I think that

1:18:06

to me , is an interesting sort of like

1:18:08

model that we could potentially again

1:18:11

you know question marks on the

1:18:13

implementation details port over

1:18:16

to the sort of like crypto

1:18:18

ecosystem .

1:18:20

Interesting . Yeah , there's a . I mean

1:18:23

there is this kind of like provocation from , I think , c4ss

1:18:25

and also from people like Yanis

1:18:28

Verifakis , of like how

1:18:30

do we use markets without capitalism or how do we have

1:18:32

markets without capitalism . I think is an interesting

1:18:35

provocation . Last

1:18:38

question I wanted to ask you you've had a lot

1:18:40

of spicy takes . What is your spiciest take that

1:18:43

you would like to leave the audience with ?

1:18:44

Oh damn , I feel like I've already given some spicy

1:18:47

takes . Probably

1:18:49

the spiciest take is

1:18:52

that we still haven't really

1:18:54

, you know as an ecosystem , proven

1:18:58

. This maybe is a good way to tie

1:19:00

back to the very beginning , like proven why we're here . I

1:19:04

think there's still a lot of like open questions

1:19:06

, a lot of like things left undefined , a lot of like details

1:19:10

that we sort of should be filling in , especially

1:19:12

around what the movement of crypto

1:19:15

is about , and , of course , there's the origin sort of in this sort of cypherpunk

1:19:18

movement

1:19:20

and so forth . But I would love to see us come together

1:19:22

and sort of articulate , you

1:19:25

know , pluralistically , a vision

1:19:27

for what we really

1:19:29

want this to be in tenure , and

1:19:33

I think that's part of like for

1:19:35

me , the motivation of like . You know , what is this sort of

1:19:38

like tech tree look like ? But it's also a question of like

1:19:40

, I think , mapping out and

1:19:42

Vitalik has done actually

1:19:44

a really great job of this with like his recent posts

1:19:47

maybe not that recent now , when

1:19:49

this is released around sort of

1:19:51

the real world applications that he would like to see . But

1:19:56

I think I would love to see more sort of of

1:19:58

a map on not just the tech sort of tree but

1:20:01

also on the sort of like movement

1:20:03

as to , like you

1:20:05

know , where we want to go in

1:20:08

the coming years . Maybe

1:20:11

that's not as spicy to take it's probably spicier

1:20:13

when scattered throughout this but that's one

1:20:16

that I think is really important for us

1:20:18

to just consider and

1:20:20

to take away .

1:20:22

Cool . Thanks so much for coming

1:20:24

on . I think people can find

1:20:26

you and follow you on , like most places

1:20:29

, including Twitter , not Scott Moore

1:20:31

.

1:20:33

Yeah , not Scott Moore on Twitter , but , like I

1:20:35

think increasingly

1:20:38

, feel free to just go to like publicworksfm

1:20:40

. Send me a note . I'll be sort

1:20:42

of like available on any

1:20:45

of the channels that are in there and

1:20:47

in general , would love to

1:20:49

chat to folks just

1:20:51

that are interested in these concepts , trying to start

1:20:53

to do a little bit more writing on these as well

1:20:56

. So if you want

1:20:58

to collaborate on some writing , feel free to hit

1:21:00

me up .

1:21:01

Cool . Thanks a lot .