0:14

Alright , hello everyone . You are listening

0:17

to the Blockchain Socials podcast . I'm

0:19

Josh and I'm here with

0:21

my co-host , primavera . We are back for

0:23

overthrowing the network state and

0:25

for this interview , we are speaking

0:27

to Matan Field

0:30

. He was a theoretical

0:32

physicist back in the day , but

0:35

he is now known

0:38

for having been a co-founder of LaZoos

0:40

, which was a ride hailing application that was built

0:43

on Bitcoin Backfeed

0:45

and DaoStack , which he co-founded with

0:47

Primavera , and now , most

0:49

recently , a project called Common

0:51

. Matan is known

0:53

for having been very early with

0:55

a lot of the many ideas that

0:58

have been explored in the crypto

1:00

world . He was also

1:02

with us at Zuzalu , where we

1:04

built out the conceptual framework

1:06

for coordination , which we used to

1:08

bring as an alternative to

1:11

the network state . From Bellagy , matan

1:14

, would you like

1:16

to say hello and give an

1:18

introduction to yourself ? I

1:20

think it would be interesting to maybe recount the

1:24

story of DaoStack as well , because I

1:26

think that's sometimes lost in

1:30

the crypto history .

1:33

Okay , hey , so thanks for having

1:36

me here . As

1:39

I said , I've practiced theoretical

1:41

physics for quite a while and

1:45

in 2013

1:47

I was doing my post-doctoral research

1:49

and during that time

1:51

, I had an idea

1:54

to do a ride hailing social ride

1:56

, hailing app just as a hobby

1:58

, for fun . And through

2:01

that project , quite from the first week

2:03

, I discovered the blockchain

2:05

, and Backfeed was Bitcoin blockchain

2:07

. And at the

2:10

same time , vitalik came

2:12

with the idea for smart contracts in Ethereum

2:14

and I get really excited about

2:16

that . And a few months later , I decided

2:18

to quit the academy and focus

2:20

on this area

2:23

, and firstly

2:25

with Zuzalu , the decentralized ride sharing

2:27

project . But quite soon after

2:29

I really got fascinated

2:32

with the notion of DaoStack , which

2:34

was back then just a kind of like vague

2:36

idea , and together

2:38

with Primavera , we founded Backfeed

2:42

to build technology or platform

2:44

for Daos . And around

2:48

2016 you were asking

2:50

about DaoStack . So around 2016 we

2:52

both kind of like ran

2:55

out of funding and roughly at the

2:57

same time DDAO

2:59

that some people may remember came

3:02

out , burst out . In

3:04

the beginning it had a lot of problems

3:09

or issues which

3:11

were acknowledged around

3:14

like protocol issues , around like game

3:16

theoretic , I would say like

3:18

wrong incentives . And

3:21

then we started to

3:24

this was still in Backfeed we started to

3:27

work on proposing

3:29

a new governance system for Dao

3:32

and , quite

3:34

like , right after

3:36

, what happened was the big bug and

3:39

the hack , and then

3:42

the whole space was kind

3:44

of like , I

3:46

would say , in a post trauma , if you just

3:48

set it down . Nobody was wanting to

3:51

hear about the Dao and at the same time

3:53

, we ran out of funding and

3:55

it seemed almost impossible to raise any funding

3:57

for a Dao initiative at that

3:59

time . And yeah

4:03

, so that's and then the second half of 2016

4:05

, for me I was all like already then

4:07

I was three years into this journey and

4:10

all in interested

4:12

and passionate about Daos and it was clear

4:15

that I would continue the journey . So

4:17

, like for about six months , I

4:20

was trying to take

4:22

lessons from Backfeed and

4:25

trying to understand what would be the next

4:27

building block or

4:29

next thing to start from . I

4:32

mean maybe to say , in Backfeed we've

4:34

tried maybe five different products

4:37

to develop , and

4:39

all of which I mean still the technology

4:41

the blockchain and smart-con technology was still very

4:44

, very early . So

4:47

then , looking at all of the insights

4:49

taken from that journey , after

4:51

like six months

4:53

I've started again , and that was DaoStack

4:56

. That was started

4:58

with a few co-founders

5:00

and

5:04

yeah , so that was that was early 17 January

5:06

17 . We started back

5:08

then . I was there , was . This was kind of like the

5:11

the peak of the hype , of the ICO hype

5:13

, and I really felt bad about

5:16

it in some sense and I , like

5:18

I had I don't know I had dual , dual

5:20

attitude towards it , because I wanted to

5:22

raise funding and you know , and

5:24

develop technology , but then I felt bad

5:27

to raise funding by a white paper alone

5:29

alone . So we decided that we

5:31

will only start raise funding after completing

5:34

a pilot of the technology . So

5:36

for like about a year , we worked to

5:39

build technology , the baseline technology

5:41

, and we started from already . Then

5:43

probably we'll get back to that , but already

5:46

then we realized that we

5:48

were , we were interested to focus on large

5:51

scale coordination

5:53

. So how ? How do we scale

5:55

? A million people , let's say ? And

5:58

we realized

6:00

that this landscape of DaoStack is so big , so

6:03

vast , that each

6:06

DAO will need different governance systems and also

6:08

, within a single DAO to have many different sales

6:10

, likely meeting different

6:12

governance system and also appreciating

6:15

or acknowledging the fact that we are

6:17

so early that we have no idea of

6:20

what governance system will actually work

6:22

. So what we decided to build was

6:24

to build a framework for governance system

6:26

, so like like smart , like

6:29

smart contracts for any code . So here

6:31

, a high level framework on

6:33

top of the smart contracts of Ethereum

6:35

, so high level framework for

6:37

different governance system , basically for any governance

6:39

system . So it was really like a language for

6:42

how to build governance systems

6:44

. And

6:46

on top of that language or top of that framework , we've

6:49

built the first interface that shows

6:51

how to utilize that framework and

6:55

we've built that technology . And

6:57

at the middle of 2018 , we both

6:59

made our own token

7:02

sale and raised a

7:04

bunch of funding and also launched

7:07

at the same time we launched the first version

7:09

of this app it was called Alchemy , with

7:12

the first DAW experiment Back then I

7:14

think it was the first on-chain significant

7:16

DAW experiment was

7:18

mid-2018 . We

7:20

called it the Genesis DAW and

7:23

it was practiced . Today , to sound

7:25

funny , we

7:28

were practicing this DAW with , or

7:31

playing around with , this DAW with a funding

7:33

of $50,000 a month . So

7:35

over a course of 18

7:37

months , I think it was between

7:39

half a million to a million dollar funding . In

7:42

today's scale it's like miniscule

7:45

and back then it was huge . It was

7:47

. People thought that we are crazy to play with

7:49

so large funding with

7:51

this early technology . So

7:53

that was the first

7:55

part of DAW stack and

7:58

then during the last few years we

8:01

made some shift

8:04

again , learning more insights from this

8:06

first wave , and

8:10

then we turned a bit more

8:12

to the social impact direction

8:14

and also

8:17

, I would say , also developed

8:19

or started from

8:21

other angles to deal

8:24

with large coordination

8:26

. I'm not just running through

8:29

it and probably we can go back to it , but basically

8:31

we both touched upon

8:33

large-scale decision making

8:35

protocols we called the Horeographic

8:38

Consensus and nowadays we are focusing

8:40

on a common app which is

8:42

focusing about the way that a

8:44

large-scale organization is looking

8:47

more like an organism . So it's not really

8:49

a single body that agrees

8:52

about everything altogether , it's not a single-government

8:54

system , but it's more like an organism that

8:56

can be made of organs , which themselves

8:58

can be made of suborgans , which

9:00

themselves can be made of suborgans and

9:02

eventually cells . So this whole

9:04

network structure , or

9:06

fractal structure , is something

9:08

that we are now manifesting

9:12

in the common app . So

9:16

this is a short , I guess fast

9:19

forward .

9:19

Yeah , I think we'll talk about common more definitely

9:22

in a bit , but I'm curious Primavera

9:24

, how do you feel having your fellow co-founder

9:26

from Daustak on ?

9:31

Very happy . Yeah , I think

9:33

that , with Matan , I

9:35

think the reason that we started working

9:37

together is because , even though we didn't

9:40

have yet the terminology

9:42

, we've been both

9:45

obsessed by figuring

9:47

out this question of

9:50

how do you help

9:52

people coordinate

9:55

themselves without

9:57

having to rely on central

10:00

authorities , and

10:02

I think that's what brought us to

10:04

the blockchain to begin with . So

10:07

, yeah , I think it's interesting

10:10

because now that we can have a retrospective

10:12

and now that we are developing

10:15

those new , I guess , theories

10:18

or concepts around

10:20

network state and networks of renties

10:23

, the

10:26

path that we've taken actually

10:28

start making a lot of sense . And

10:31

yeah , I don't know if it was like . I think it

10:33

was about being too early and

10:36

trying to provide Dao tooling at

10:38

that time , in which Daos

10:41

didn't mean anything to anyone . But

10:44

also , I think the world not

10:46

only was not understanding Daos

10:48

, but I think the world was also not as greedy

10:51

as it is today to

10:53

understanding the possibilities of new networks

10:55

of renties , and

10:58

it seems that now the

11:00

ground is actually very fertile for

11:03

both of those and

11:06

, in fact , now there is demand for those

11:08

technical tools , because there is demand

11:10

for those

11:12

new government structures

11:14

that

11:17

Daos can be announced for too . So

11:23

, yeah , I think now we can start

11:25

the work finally .

11:29

I think one of the things that , for me , the network state

11:31

is kind of like a sign or

11:33

a symptom of now , I guess

11:35

, a larger mass of

11:37

people being more interested in these types

11:40

of things and questions that

11:43

you guys were just like much earlier

11:45

and much before For

11:47

example , bellagie was thinking about this , but

11:50

yeah , so maybe I don't know . Next

11:52

, would you like to talk a bit about

11:57

the question that I think , like

12:00

you said , that attracts a lot

12:02

of people to blockchains

12:04

is how do we scale coordination

12:07

of more and more people

12:09

? How do we scale millions of people to coordinate

12:11

with one another to achieve shared

12:15

collective goals ? Why

12:19

do you even start with

12:22

that question ? Because it

12:24

seems like it's a massive one .

12:27

Yeah , that's actually a really good question that

12:29

we often skip . I mean , I personally

12:31

believe that that's the most important task right now

12:33

mission to be done , and

12:36

that's why I at least

12:38

for me , that's my motivation , and

12:41

I also have to say that that driver

12:44

has been changing in the past

12:46

decade , but in a way that just made it much

12:48

more urgent . So

12:51

when I started it was

12:53

more from the

12:55

place of seeing

12:57

the potential of it . It

12:59

was obvious to me . I looked around

13:01

and I saw there are so many causes

13:04

that

13:06

people would like to organize around If

13:09

they just could . They don't think about it because they don't

13:11

have the idea

13:14

that it's possible , but if they just could organize

13:17

easily 1,000 people , 10,000

13:19

people , 100,000 people , 1,000 people . There

13:22

are so many causes that will be executed

13:27

on and

13:29

I would just say it was obvious to me

13:32

that the world would be a

13:34

thousand time better . I

13:36

think what changed over the course of the past

13:38

decade was that and

13:41

that we didn't . I personally didn't see

13:43

that 10 years ago , but now I think it's very , very

13:45

obvious in the past five

13:47

, seven years that

13:49

the whole system

13:53

that we are now tapped

13:55

to the regular

13:57

state system

14:00

, the regular corporate system , the regular

14:02

economic system and global system we are tapped

14:04

to is completely

14:07

fault and collapsing

14:10

and driving off the cliff

14:12

. And I think now it's

14:14

actually a matter of

14:17

existential matter . I think that the

14:19

only way that society

14:22

can correct itself is if

14:24

a million people would

14:26

be able to organize , to self organize

14:29

together for action . It could

14:31

be both a one

14:33

time action for a specific cause or an ongoing

14:35

action like a nation . And

14:38

I mean I think it's now

14:40

understood very well how

14:42

the current system are captured , the

14:44

current system are corrupted , even

14:47

though they are trying to be somewhat decentralized you

14:49

could say democracy is decentralized , but

14:52

actually people have captured the

14:54

seats and and

14:57

the only way to

14:59

uncapture that is if the

15:02

next step in the next step , society

15:04

, the economic power , the

15:07

center of gravity or the mass where

15:09

the mass is in terms

15:11

of economic power , would

15:14

be held by large networks

15:16

and not by centralized authorities

15:19

of any kind . Because large networks

15:22

in their nature they take into

15:24

account , for why their interest , for

15:26

why their incentives , they are less capturable

15:29

or corruptible . So

15:32

now I really see that as a necessity

15:34

, like it's not just any longer a bonus

15:36

that we may increase the

15:38

potential of humanity . I actually think that's

15:40

the only thing that will , you

15:43

know , in a way , free us from the , from

15:45

the , from the moon

15:47

. You know the train that is now

15:50

running off the cliff at this moment . And

15:52

I think every year is just accelerating

15:54

and of course , there is much , much more

15:56

theory about how this acceleration

15:58

, this running off the cliff I'm

16:01

not going to talk about that more

16:03

because I think there are people who are , you

16:05

know , teaching about that much better . I'm

16:08

just learning from them . But people

16:10

like Daniel Schmachtenbeger and

16:12

Jordan Hall and many others , I think

16:15

, have beautiful writings

16:18

and podcasts and everything and videos explaining

16:21

the current

16:23

problem and I think by now

16:25

there is quite a consensus that the only

16:27

logical solution , that is , a large scale

16:30

coordination .

16:31

And actually I want to add something to

16:33

this , because in some way , like I

16:36

think it's also the , the

16:38

institutional structure that we use is is

16:41

very delicate , is like is very important

16:43

, in the sense that you know

16:46

the core . The core problem

16:48

is , like how do you achieve collective action ? And

16:51

and it's not that , it's not that we haven't

16:53

tried right it's like we

16:55

have companies , we have organizations

16:58

, we have governments . Those are all created

17:00

in order to actually achieve collective action , and

17:04

the challenge , though , is that many

17:07

times , when you create those institutions

17:10

, then the institution

17:12

become this kind of alien

17:14

being , which

17:18

actually brings people to do things that they will

17:20

never do otherwise . Right , and

17:22

it's very interesting , like because you know , I

17:25

resonate a lot with what you say that if we

17:27

had people like most people are

17:29

good people and if those good people were to

17:31

collect , to do collective

17:33

action , good things will come out of it

17:36

, but the good people

17:38

that will do that are the same people that

17:40

today are actually doing like harsh

17:42

competition , exploitation

17:45

, wars and so forth , because

17:47

of the institutions that have been created . And

17:50

for me , like when we're talking about coordination

17:54

and networks of entities and so forth

17:56

, there's also the question of how

17:59

do we ensure that , as

18:02

we create a new structure , a

18:04

new institution that enable people

18:07

to engage into collective action , how

18:09

do we ensure that this doesn't

18:11

actually lead to the same outcome of

18:13

distorting somehow

18:16

the collective

18:18

action problem into creating

18:20

something that the institution is

18:22

doing for its own benefit

18:24

, as opposed to actually

18:27

instrumental , being

18:29

instrumentalized by the collective action that the

18:31

people want to do ? Right , and I think when

18:33

we're thinking about states and governments

18:35

, the origin

18:38

is a great origin . It's like

18:40

we want to live in a society , we want to coordinate

18:42

the society , and then we create

18:44

those institutions that also then live

18:48

with , acquire her life on their own and

18:51

then can become very oppressive

18:53

to the people that actually created

18:55

it . So it's like

18:57

I think it's not enough to just

19:00

talk about collective action

19:02

, because I think we need to admit that we

19:04

have achieved very

19:06

large scale mechanism of collaboration

19:08

, but somehow they are , they

19:11

are easily corruptible and they are corrupted

19:13

by the institution itself . And

19:16

I think when we're talking about those

19:18

new types of coordination and networks of

19:21

variety , we want to avoid this and

19:23

so we need to design the institutional

19:26

fabric in order to remain

19:30

true to the original intention of why the institution

19:33

was created to begin with .

19:36

Yeah , I agree . I would just say

19:38

I mean I agree that

19:40

the problem is not

19:42

people the problem , or , to

19:44

large degree , the problem is not people the problem . People

19:46

mostly are good . I think the bad

19:49

thing is not people , it's the institute , it's the

19:51

system . However

19:54

, the way that the institute

19:56

collapses is through people . So

19:58

some people capture and

20:01

abuse the

20:03

structure and

20:06

a structure that we thought that is fairly decentralized

20:08

. As people's capacity

20:11

to impact other people has

20:13

increased , some people learned how

20:15

to use it in a centralized , in a very

20:17

centralized manner . So even bodies

20:20

or institutes that we thought before are pretty decentralized

20:22

ie democracies , I

20:25

think , are now are very , very catchable , much more

20:27

catchable than we thought they are 30

20:29

years ago . So

20:33

the question is really so

20:35

one way I mean it's not the only way you can

20:37

ask it , but one way I think to phrase your question

20:39

is how do we build new infrastructures

20:42

or new systems ? They're not

20:44

that easily catchable , or they're not catchable , or

20:46

they even antifragile to capture a realty

20:48

. That's even better , right , and

20:51

so that's one way to look at it . I think there

20:53

are other ways to look at it . For

20:55

example , another way to look at it is from alignment

20:58

of incentives . How do you create

21:00

a system that automatically

21:02

align incentives , for example

21:04

? And I think all

21:07

these things are somewhat similar to when we look at

21:09

organisms , right ? So , for example

21:11

, in organism , you're

21:14

not asking whether an organism

21:16

has alignment of incentives . It's

21:19

built into the system , right ? The

21:21

collective , in a way , pains

21:24

or feels the pain of the cell

21:26

. Right , I'm the being , I'm

21:28

the collective , Me , the consciousness , I'm

21:30

the collective and I feel

21:32

the pain . I literally feel as my pain

21:34

when my cells are burning . And

21:37

the opposite right , the

21:39

cell feels pain when I'm sick . Right

21:42

, and there

21:44

is some sort of building alignment of interests

21:47

. We

21:50

probably will touch more about this . But I

21:52

also think that and I just mentioned in

21:54

the title and then let go I also think

21:56

that this fractal nature

21:59

of things and the right balance

22:03

, balance of forces , is very , very

22:05

critical for this organism-ness

22:08

to appear . And

22:10

when I say balance of forces , what I mean is that , if

22:14

you see , if you look at this nesting , at this fractal

22:16

of organs and cells

22:21

, you can look at

22:24

the balance between , at every level

22:26

you can look at , you can ask to what

22:29

degree the child is

22:31

autonomous versus

22:33

is responsible to the higher

22:36

level . Right , there is always like if it's

22:38

too autonomous , if it's totally

22:40

not responsible for anything else

22:42

, you just get tons of cells with

22:45

zero responsibility , you get chaos . But

22:48

if it's too much , if it's too

22:50

less autonomous , it's too much responsible

22:53

or under the power of the parent

22:55

, you get authoritarianism . So

23:00

you need to find a way to create the

23:02

balance , the right balance

23:05

, between the independence

23:07

and sovereignty

23:10

of the cells and organs

23:12

and the responsibility and the

23:14

alignment of interest between the organs and the

23:16

cells in a certain level . So

23:19

I think all of these are different ways of understanding

23:21

.

23:21

Yeah , and in some ways this is highly

23:24

correlated with point

23:28

seven of a recipe , which is this

23:30

type of alignment

23:32

of interest is achieved by

23:34

interweaving

23:36

, right ? If

23:39

I am interwoven with another

23:41

actor , then I cannot

23:43

but wish for this actor

23:46

to do as well as possible , because then I'd also

23:48

do as well as possible . And so , in some

23:50

ways , like , the

23:53

traditional way of scaling

23:55

up is centralizing things , because

23:58

decentralization leads to

24:00

potential conflict of interest or

24:02

competition . And

24:05

what we're trying to do with this coordination

24:07

system is actually how

24:09

do you scale up while maintaining the

24:11

alignment and while actually increasing

24:14

cooperation , as opposed to competition , between

24:17

the fractalized nodes ? And

24:20

my hypothesis will be

24:22

that these mechanisms of excessively

24:26

or intentionally creating a additional

24:28

interdependencies is

24:31

one of the solutions that will ensure

24:34

that you can scale fractally

24:36

while ensuring that every

24:38

single fractal node

24:40

in the network is

24:42

acting in the interest of itself and

24:45

therefore of the whole .

24:47

If I can add on that . I totally agree

24:49

with that , but also want to add that it's

24:51

actually critical that you scale up in

24:54

a fractal way , because you're

24:56

talking about interdependence and

24:58

sometimes you call it sharing blood and

25:03

this sharing . Let me make an example . If

25:05

you try to , if you have no fractal

25:08

, let's say you take a million people and they're only

25:10

in single vessel and then you're sharing

25:12

blood . Sharing blood means that some

25:15

success or damage of the

25:17

collective is

25:19

corresponding with success or

25:21

damage of the individual . And

25:24

then you're saying , okay , so now I have the interest

25:26

to make

25:29

the collective success . But we all know

25:31

that that doesn't work because of the tragedy of the commons , because

25:33

that individual says

25:35

, okay , I , you know , everyone else will take care

25:37

for the success of the collective . If

25:40

just me , if just me is not going

25:42

to do that , you know I

25:44

will gain both my free energy

25:46

that I just reserved and as well the

25:48

success for everyone else . So the tragedy of

25:50

the common is that everyone said that and the whole

25:53

interest game collapse . So

25:55

but that's not true . When you have fractal

25:58

, you have many levels and then each

26:00

level is actually quite intimate . So

26:06

then then actually you get that actually fixes

26:08

the tragedy of the commons , so

26:11

the sharing blood or the interdependencies

26:14

. And actually in reality I think it's much

26:16

more complex than just a tree , a

26:18

nested tree . It's

26:21

actually more like a graph because you know , different

26:23

organs can be sub organs

26:25

to several components and different

26:27

cells can be sub and cells can be sub

26:30

system to different

26:33

organs .

26:34

So it's really like a whole mesh network

26:37

such that from at each level

26:40

the alignment of interest is actually quite

26:42

intimate to some degree in an economic

26:44

sense , and so , speaking about

26:46

this , I think it would be interesting , maybe as well

26:48

because you're working on a

26:51

project called common , and this

26:53

is you're basically referring to a lot

26:55

of the , I think , concepts that are

26:57

crucial for the applications

26:59

that you guys are building there . Would

27:02

you like to talk a bit more about common

27:06

and how you see scaling

27:08

coordination fractally via

27:11

technological infrastructure , I guess , or

27:13

using the blockchain ?

27:16

Okay . So first thing I want to

27:18

say it's we tend to think about that

27:20

in terms maybe I mean I'm a bit detouring

27:22

, but just it's , it's a common

27:24

. And then I go go back to what we're asking . But it's

27:26

related . So we are talking about nesting

27:29

or fractalizing , right

27:31

, and usually when we think about that

27:33

we think about it in a physical

27:35

sense . So , for example , you

27:38

have different states and in different states

27:40

you have different cities and different neighborhoods

27:42

and different neighborhoods . You have different blocks . In

27:44

different blocks you have different buildings , different buildings

27:46

, you have different apartments all

27:49

the way to the cell . So

27:53

this is , this is a let's call it a physical

27:55

fractal , and can be all very distributed

27:58

, but still it's a physical like . It's less

28:00

and smaller and smaller . And

28:04

in the community space , community dimension , in

28:06

the people dimension . Another way , another

28:09

chapter , another idea I want

28:11

to bring in is that

28:13

we're also talking about the fractal in

28:15

the content they mentioned

28:17

in the code scheme . If

28:20

you want to , if you want to collaborate across

28:23

a large number of people , it means

28:25

that the collaboration , the action , the collective

28:27

action that you're generating is very complex , so

28:30

that collective action can be broken down

28:32

to sub-actions . We can work

28:34

broken down to sub-actions and so on and so forth

28:36

, and that's not exactly the same . They're

28:39

related but they're not exactly the same . You can do a fractal

28:41

in people's scape and

28:44

space and you can do a fractal in content

28:46

space , and that's not quite the same

28:48

. And I think that that's actually an important

28:51

note . I

28:53

think that the right way to scale up a

28:56

large scale collaboration is by

28:59

doing a fractal on the content dimension

29:01

. It's , of course , naturally

29:03

, will organize to some sort of fractal

29:05

at the people dimension , but not exactly

29:07

quite the same . So

29:10

that's maybe one comment

29:12

Going

29:15

back to like asking okay , so how that

29:17

relates to technology , how that relates to an app

29:19

, to a platform , to user interface

29:21

. So

29:27

I mean , we

29:30

all have a notion of a group space

29:33

. So

29:39

the most simple example would be a

29:41

WhatsApp group or a Telegram group . So

29:43

if you want to have now a

29:46

certain scope of action , you would open a Telegram

29:48

group . If you have a slightly more complex

29:51

scope of action , you might open a Discord channel

29:53

, because then you can embody 30

29:56

groups , 30 channels , in there

29:58

. And now , by the way , telegram has

30:00

a new feature . It's called Topics . So

30:02

we can embody inside the Telegram group

30:04

30 topics , such topics . So

30:07

in a sense , I think it's

30:11

not very different from that . So we need to start

30:13

from something like that . We need to start from

30:15

the notion of . I like to call it a

30:17

space , you can call

30:19

it different words , I mean , you can call it a group . I

30:22

don't like the notion of group . That's connected to the comment

30:24

I said before . I don't

30:26

like the notion of group Because when you say group

30:29

you are hinting that

30:31

the encapsulated space is

30:33

differentiated by the people in

30:35

it , and actually I want to say that

30:37

the encapsulated space is diffused by the

30:39

content scope in it . So

30:42

that's why I like less the wording

30:44

of a group for that . But from a technological

30:46

application purpose it's the same . So

30:49

imagine that you have a space , again

30:51

like a Telegram channel , a group

30:53

. You have a space for specific

30:55

content right or

30:57

a specific scope , specific missions

31:00

, specific

31:02

scope I think that's the most general

31:04

terminology . And now

31:07

, in the sense of that fractal , imagine

31:09

that you can now have daughters or

31:11

children to

31:14

that group or to that channel or

31:16

to that space . So now you have subspaces

31:19

which are then encapsulating

31:22

a smaller and narrower part

31:24

of the scope . We have yet

31:26

subspaces and subspaces all the

31:28

way until you have the most tiniest

31:31

scope . And

31:33

so , firstly , with that you

31:35

can span a very large scale collaboration

31:38

. Maybe I should say OK , what do

31:40

you have in each node on that graph ? What do

31:42

you have in each node on the graph ? You have

31:44

a scope of action . That

31:46

scope of action can contain the

31:48

regular chat that you are used to

31:50

, Just a chat room , that's basically

31:52

. But you can also have its own governance

31:55

system , membership system , funding

31:58

, incoming funds , outgoing funds

32:01

, anything . So anything is basically

32:03

every node on that graph

32:05

. Every node on the graph is what

32:08

you would call a DAO , basically , or a sub-DAO

32:11

. Now , when

32:13

you have this fractal of

32:15

nodes , you

32:18

can both go , and I think usually

32:20

we are tending to think how powerful

32:22

it is that we can go upward . We can go

32:24

to a broad scope

32:26

, because we can build up certain

32:29

small scopes into a bigger scope , certain bigger

32:31

scope into a yet bigger scope , and so on and so forth

32:33

. I think what is more

32:35

surprising is actually that

32:38

we can break down further downward

32:40

. I think that's actually more surprising , although

32:42

it's actually more trivial . What do I mean by

32:44

that ? It means that the thing that you're usually

32:48

thinking about them as a single

32:50

group the

32:52

usual scope that you think would be in a single

32:54

group you can actually break down into

32:57

10 subspaces and

32:59

even then you can find out they can

33:01

break them down yet to more subspaces

33:04

, all the way until eventually the

33:06

cell , the very cell of a

33:08

scope , is that scope is

33:10

very , very focused . You're just having

33:12

a single conversation in that cell . If

33:16

you just think about any telegram chat that you've

33:18

seen recently , you

33:21

remember that there is dozens

33:24

of conversations are

33:26

trying to merge in

33:29

that room and because of that they're

33:31

all breaking

33:33

each other and none of them is actually . Have

33:35

you ever seen a single

33:37

conversation going on for a month

33:40

in a telegram chat ? I've

33:42

never seen such a thing , because the conversations are

33:44

stepping on each other and

33:47

if you actually want to have a space which

33:49

has a specific scope , which

33:51

has longevity , that it can go on

33:53

and on and people can come in and go out

33:56

and it's open and 100

33:58

different people who don't know each other can all contribute

34:00

to the same scope . If you want that

34:02

, you need the scopes to be the

34:05

most well defined . They can be A

34:07

single conversation and a little bit saturated

34:09

. So I just

34:11

in that comment I think it's small

34:14

but important comment

34:16

I was trying to say that just

34:19

as this fractal structure of cells

34:21

of spaces that

34:24

maybe would look like telegram channels

34:26

or telegram groups , just

34:29

as they are powerful that you can scale them up

34:31

, they're actually powerful that you can break them

34:33

down into a very granular

34:35

cells of action . So

34:38

eventually , if you're asking how that looks , like it

34:40

really looks when you're standing on

34:43

a single node , what you see is

34:45

just that activity of

34:47

that node . You see a chat . That chat

34:49

is the chat of that node . You can see the

34:51

tasks of that node . You

34:53

can see all of the daughters of that node . You can see

34:55

which daughters , which subscopes are

34:57

connected to it . You can see the parents of that

34:59

, which parents this node

35:01

is part of .

35:04

And you can see also the dynamics

35:06

around that .

35:07

You can see incoming transaction , outgoing transaction

35:09

, evaluations and

35:11

so on and so forth , contributions made and

35:13

so on and so forth . I totally get

35:15

that . It's abstract

35:18

in that way . So I

35:21

hope that it conveys something , but

35:24

I'm talking about a very specific user

35:26

interface .

35:28

Yeah , I mean , I think maybe an

35:31

easier way to explain that would be

35:34

to just say kind of like a wiki , but

35:36

it's also . It

35:39

is not just one

35:42

direction , as in . You're not just

35:44

creating fractalization in

35:46

one direction , but things are also being

35:48

related almost

35:50

horizontally as well

35:52

, so that there is this

35:54

kind of like . Thus you create this kind of hierarchical

35:58

diagram of related

36:00

topics and concepts or

36:02

things

36:04

that are related to one another , which is similar

36:06

to on a Wikipedia . You

36:08

can , there are links to horizontal

36:11

things on one single Wikipedia

36:14

page . You don't necessarily go just

36:16

in one direction , deeper

36:18

and deeper into a rabbit hole down

36:20

, but you also go , you explore the

36:23

expanse around it .

36:24

Yeah , totally , and

36:26

the other difference is that it's actually a living

36:29

cell or organ

36:31

. So it's not just a static

36:33

page you're coming and reading , but

36:35

you can have a conversation in there . People

36:38

can different people

36:40

that don't know each other can find

36:43

themselves in that node and have conversations

36:45

. They can open new conversations and

36:48

it's very dynamic . I mean you could say

36:50

also Wikipedia is dynamic , but it's slowly

36:52

moving . This is very fastly moving . You're coming

36:54

into a node , you're just proposing

36:56

a new question , new sub-question and

36:59

like that there is a new node with

37:01

a new conversation , a new outcome , maybe

37:04

a new purpose , maybe

37:07

new definition of that . If it's a project , a

37:10

new sub-desk and so forth , it's

37:12

a very dynamic system

37:14

.

37:15

It's a living system .

37:17

So it's like a collaborative , not

37:20

collaborative about just writing . Yeah , it's

37:22

like real time , it's a real time Wikipedia , something

37:25

like Wikipedia time

37:27

, telegram channels , times , train-up

37:30

, something like that . Times governance

37:32

of each node . I

37:35

think that's kind of like the max I can try

37:37

to explain the UI without showing a

37:40

UI , but that's a .

37:41

Yeah , so it's a knowledge

37:43

management system to be able to

37:46

create a kind of collective intelligence to where

37:48

people can have context

37:50

about certain things and certain specific

37:52

things if action needs to be done or

37:55

understood .

37:56

Yeah , yeah , plus the live conversation

37:59

around all that context and content in actions

38:01

.

38:03

Hi everyone . If you're enjoying this episode so far

38:06

, be sure to subscribe , leave a review , share

38:08

with a friend and join the CryptoLeftist communities

38:10

on Discord or Reddit , which you can find links to in

38:12

the show notes . If you're enjoying the episode or

38:14

find the content I make important , you can pitch into

38:16

my effort , starting at $3 a month on

38:18

patreoncom slash the blockchain socialist

38:21

, to help me out and join the newest patrons

38:23

, like Arthur , sinclair and

38:25

Pedro , which really helps , since

38:27

making this stuff isn't free in terms of money

38:30

or time . As a patron , you'll get a

38:32

shout out on an episode , like I just did , and access

38:34

the bonus content like Q&A episodes . You

38:36

can submit and vote on questions you'd like me to answer

38:38

and I'll give my thoughts on roughly 20

38:40

minutes . Of course , I'll still be making free

38:42

content like this interview to help spread the message

38:44

that blockchain doesn't need to be used to further trench capitalist

38:46

exploitation if we put our efforts into it . So

38:49

if that message resonates with you , I hope you'll consider

38:51

helping out .

38:54

Yeah , I think maybe we can also discuss

38:56

a little bit . To me it feels like

38:59

we discuss the tools , but

39:02

I feel like Matana , I would

39:04

love if we can hear more of

39:06

your protocol

39:08

thinking about what

39:11

are the various ways in

39:13

which you think that this

39:16

fractalization , this scaling

39:18

up of fractals , can

39:20

be done , and what

39:22

are the various ways in which this

39:25

interweaving can be enabled

39:27

, via blockchain or without

39:29

? Via blockchain , I don't know , because

39:32

right now we spoke mostly about the tool , for I

39:34

guess , I mean , I

39:36

guess that's deliberation , but

39:39

I think we

39:41

need to sort this out . But we also need to

39:43

sort out many other

39:45

technicalities and

39:48

I'm curious if you have

39:50

some ideas or some suggestions of

39:54

what are the various ways in which interweaving

39:56

can be achieved , given specific

39:58

communities , of course .

40:00

So one maybe a

40:03

pretext to

40:05

this answering that . So

40:07

I tried , you know , in the previous exercise

40:09

I

40:13

tried to exemplify

40:15

how a large scale

40:17

coordination or

40:19

a complex donation would be broken down

40:21

, would have structure right and

40:23

a fractal structure . That's what I was trying to give

40:27

example for . So the

40:29

outcome was sort of the graph and

40:32

, as you pointed out , it's not just a

40:34

nested graph , it's really like what

40:36

I call DAG not I call , but

40:38

people call the

40:40

signal graph , so you can have different trajectories to

40:43

the same point . So

40:47

, and then the next step is to understand . Okay , but what is

40:49

the point on that graph ? And I tried to kind

40:51

of like explain what is the point on

40:54

that graph . And I said the point is like a space

40:56

with a certain scope , with

40:59

a place for conversation , deliberation and

41:02

maybe also place for tasks , missions , funding

41:04

and everything you need to have , like for

41:06

any part of the collaboration , right ? So I described

41:09

what the point is on the graph . And

41:12

then the next question is okay , if we understand

41:14

what the point , then what is the link between

41:17

two points ? Right ? What can

41:19

link be ? And that's related

41:21

to interweaving . Now the

41:24

link can be . I

41:26

think I understand what you were asking , prim

41:28

. So you were more interested

41:31

about the interdependence , the

41:35

sharing blood piece of that , the

41:38

protocol part of that . So

41:41

I'll come to that in a minute . But just to say that the

41:43

link is a more , is

41:46

a wider concept in that that's part of what

41:49

a link is . And some

41:51

parts of the link are very technical

41:54

let's say Less protocol

41:56

but they're also protocol in a sense . Let me give you

41:58

examples of it . It doesn't stay

42:00

too abstract . For example , let's

42:03

say that you have a sub-scope of

42:05

a bigger scope , right ? The

42:08

notion of membership is

42:11

actually quite tricky . For example

42:13

, you could say that the link , the relationship

42:15

between this node and that node , this

42:18

node decided . If someone is a member

42:20

of some sort of that node

42:23

, I want him to be automatically a

42:25

member of that node , of this node . So

42:27

membership inheritance is

42:30

actually a part of what we define as a link , the

42:32

definitions of membership inheritance

42:35

. If someone is a leader in that

42:37

node , we want him to automatically be a leader in that

42:39

node . Some has some reputation X

42:41

in there , we want to account for reputation YX

42:44

in there , and so on and so forth

42:46

. So everything around membership

42:49

and properties of membership

42:51

, such as reputation and the inheritance

42:53

between nodes , this

42:56

is part of the notion of a link , for

43:01

example . Another part of the link is

43:03

reputation of one node inside the other . So

43:05

if one node has governance rights

43:07

, the collective around that node has governance

43:10

rights in the other node . That's also

43:12

something which is part of that link . Then you can

43:14

go to interweaving to . I

43:16

mean that's also part of interweaving . But then you could

43:18

go to interdependence , for example

43:21

, and I think the most easier , the

43:23

easiest . The first thing that

43:25

comes to our mind is economical interdependence

43:27

. I mean the problem with that

43:30

is , I think we are too much driven

43:32

into economical interdependence and I

43:34

think we're not thinking enough about non-economical

43:36

interdependence , but nevertheless it's the easiest

43:39

to think about . So let's stay with that for a moment . So

43:42

we think about economic interdependence

43:44

, so , for example , and then

43:46

there is a lot of ways to manifest that , but the simplest

43:49

way and again I'm trying to be to

43:52

say the simplest at every

43:54

chapter so

43:57

the simplest interdependence

43:59

, economic interdependence between nodes . Let's

44:01

think about them as part of this . Child is

44:03

thinking that we have the token of the parent , you

44:05

have the token of the child , right , you

44:09

have the economy of the parent , you have the economy of the token of

44:11

the child . And now

44:13

imagine that they token swap in some sense

44:15

and there are different ways to do token swaps or something

44:17

like a token swap . You can also say

44:19

that the only way to mean the

44:22

token of the child is by staking

44:24

the token of the parent . That's another way . There's

44:26

some different ways , but they're all different

44:28

in manifestation of some sort of

44:30

token swap . Basically . So

44:33

if you token swap between parent and child , of

44:36

course a success

44:38

of the economy of the token of the child token

44:41

derives a success

44:43

of the parent and vice versa , and

44:45

also failure too . So

44:48

I understand

44:50

that that's not most general and maybe

44:52

not the best way to think about interdependence

44:56

between nodes , but it's definitely the easiest

44:58

way to think about it . So I think that's the .

45:00

Yeah , exactly , I think the baseline , especially when you're thinking

45:02

in a DAO model . That's

45:07

the low hanging fruit , I would say , and

45:10

then you can choose which are the token that are being

45:12

interchanged

45:14

. Is it like economic tokens ? Is

45:16

it government tokens ? Is it whatever ? Is

45:21

it a particular type of token which actually

45:23

lead to inducing

45:26

, practically creating

45:28

, interdependency on some aspect ? But not also . So

45:30

there's like I think the token is the . I would

45:32

say it's almost the means by which most

45:34

likely things can be done , because the token

45:37

is the representation of something . But

45:41

yeah , I think there's a lot of thinking

45:44

to be done in terms of what

45:47

are the consequences of sharing

45:51

a particular resource

45:53

rather than another and

45:55

what is the optimal combination

45:57

of interdependencies

45:59

that can be designed .

46:02

Yeah , I think we are very far

46:04

from understanding optimal or anything like optimal

46:07

. I think we can just start playing with building

46:09

blocks and seeing

46:11

what's happening . But if you want to make

46:13

all this very tangible , not stay

46:15

abstract . Let's take a very

46:18

particular example . Let's say that you

46:20

now have a DAO or

46:23

a collective , whatever A collective . That

46:25

collective is trying to , is

46:27

competing against whatever

46:29

other collectives maybe , and

46:31

in a hackathon okay , in a big hackathon

46:34

and it needs to achieve

46:36

certain goals , certain to build something

46:38

. Okay . And if it wins , if it's

46:40

successful in building that something quickly , then

46:43

it gets a million dollar , okay . So

46:46

now imagine that that's something

46:48

, that something that you're building has three

46:50

components , right ? And

46:53

then so you're building the A component

46:55

, the B component , the C component and maybe there's a D

46:57

group that connect all those components together

46:59

. And now imagine that

47:01

each such component is a sub , it's a sub

47:03

concept , it's a sub scope , it's a sub group

47:05

, if you wish , sub DAO , whatever you call that . Okay

47:08

, but then I don't like it to call it a sub

47:10

group , because then people can play also

47:12

here and there and be in several

47:14

groups . It's not really sub group , it's more like a sub scope

47:17

. So there is the scope of

47:19

building A , scope of building B , scope

47:21

of building C and the scope of connecting

47:23

A , b and C , which is D , and

47:27

then imagine that you have

47:29

a way to

47:32

sort of define eventually

47:34

and let's say that eventually , if they win right

47:37

, they get the million dollar . But there

47:39

is also this understanding how that million

47:41

dollar will be distributed towards

47:43

the contributors of A , b , c and D

47:45

right . And

47:48

this is something like holding a token of

47:51

the parent right , the notion of how much

47:53

value you've accrued , how much

47:55

value you've contributed and how much

47:57

value you will see back upon a success

47:59

. You can manifest that with holding

48:02

of the token of the parent . So

48:05

now , if I'm working on a component C right , I

48:12

mean I can be very successful , but successful

48:14

, but then if component B is not achieved

48:17

, I will see nothing right , at the

48:19

end I will see nothing . So I have

48:21

the interest to help . So , although

48:23

I'm kind of like competing with component

48:25

B to get a larger share

48:28

of the win , I'm also

48:30

and to be bigger I

48:33

get a larger share of the win . I

48:35

also have a very strong incentive to

48:38

make B and A

48:40

and D successful , otherwise I

48:42

will get nothing right . So

48:45

that's a very although it's maybe you'd

48:47

say it's a stupid example , but it's a very particular

48:49

example where we see kind of

48:51

interweaving , economic independence and

48:54

alignment of interests happening . And

48:57

if you break it down to manifestation , if you will go down

48:59

into some sort of token swap or token

49:01

hold or mutual token holding and

49:03

so on , so forth . Something of that

49:05

sort , I think , will be appearing

49:08

more and more , but

49:11

the problem will be different manifestation

49:13

, different combination , different value , valuation

49:16

mechanisms different

49:19

stakes , so on and so forth , and I don't think there

49:22

is , we're not even close to , I don't think

49:24

it's even in

49:26

the stage right now to think about optimization

49:29

. The state we are at is to

49:31

think about building blocks

49:33

in particular use cases

49:35

, trying to advise them .

49:36

I think , a lot of the things that you said and

49:38

that you've kind of explained . I've seen

49:40

similar things in other types

49:44

of crypto applications . I think there is this trend

49:47

more and more towards fractalization

49:50

. People like to use the term sub-dow as

49:52

a way to explain a

49:54

sub-team inside of a Dow . Basically

49:57

, it sounds like to me . But

50:00

yeah , I think it's this

50:02

need to keep

50:04

things to allow

50:06

a human to be a human , because humans can

50:08

only interact within a particular

50:11

sized scope , while

50:13

also trying to control for what

50:16

is being reproduced

50:18

at scale . So

50:22

, understanding how , at the

50:24

kind of the level of the human

50:26

, is able to interact

50:29

with other humans

50:31

because that's the only way we can really re-interact

50:34

with other humans that's what comes naturally

50:36

to us , I guess , but how that can

50:38

be translated into larger

50:41

collective action , using

50:43

this communications network that we now have

50:45

over the internet and using blockchains to

50:48

facilitate those types of

50:50

interactions . Yeah

50:52

, I think . I don't know if , primavera , do you have

50:54

any other questions

50:56

you want to dig into ? With Matan , we've

50:58

talked a lot about coordination .

51:02

Yeah , I mean I think we

51:05

covered a lot of the cons .

51:07

I think what I like about when you were explaining

51:09

coordination which

51:11

is in line with

51:13

some of my writings in my book

51:15

, which is now out is that

51:17

a lot of that like coordination for me is

51:19

not just like people

51:22

working together , it's also like

51:25

acknowledging , I think , power

51:27

relationships and the fact that there is authoritarianism

51:30

in the world and we

51:32

don't coordinate just to coordinate , but we coordinate

51:34

to achieve goals . And then acknowledging kind

51:36

of like the power , the power imbalances

51:38

that exist in the world already is

51:41

what makes coordination worthwhile

51:44

or useful , necessary

51:46

in fact , for , like

51:48

climate change and all these other large problems

51:51

that we have hurtling towards us .

51:54

I mean , I think it's also a way of reconfiguring

51:58

power , right ? Because right

52:00

now we have a lot of power accumulated

52:02

into a few actors and

52:05

if we find ways to

52:07

engage into proper collective action , then

52:09

we can reconfigure power dynamics

52:11

so that what

52:14

the majority of the people who aren't actually gets done

52:16

.

52:18

Right , I mean it's also I think

52:20

it's both that and also utilizing

52:23

much better the resources that we have in

52:25

terms of humans and good intention that

52:27

right now just cannot coordinate to

52:31

produce better results . But

52:33

, yeah , these are both different sides of

52:35

the same token . I think what's ? I'm

52:38

trying to think like , what's the ? I

52:40

don't know if I would call it a lesson , but I

52:45

feel and

52:47

that's very much related to what I've been doing in

52:50

the past year or

52:52

so , maybe a bit less

52:54

mostly with common , with the work

52:56

in common that is pretty

53:00

much now getting out , I mean , as a product

53:02

. Is that I mean we were

53:04

talking about ? I mean , prim , you definitely you

53:06

would agree with that . I mean we were talking about these fractals

53:09

and nested and sub-dials . We were

53:11

talking about this like I don't know , like

53:13

eight years ago , right , and

53:16

we've heard so many

53:18

people talking about them , but

53:20

it always stays abstract , always stay

53:23

. Like you can say a fractal a thousand

53:25

times , it doesn't make it more concrete . I

53:28

mean you can say , okay , it's kind of like Wikipedia

53:30

, it's kind of like Reddit , it's kind of like

53:32

other things . If

53:35

you know workflow for those who know what's workflow

53:37

, it's like workflow . It's like Rome

53:39

research , if you know Rome research , it's like nested

53:42

bullets . Just

53:44

now they ask okay , but what is a bullet ? In

53:46

that sense , what I came

53:48

to appreciate when starting

53:50

to work in common is was saying was

53:52

how do we bring that I mean

53:54

, it's enough talking

53:56

about that but how do we bring it into the ground ? Like , how do

53:58

we actually make it a UI , something

54:01

that actually can people organize with , can

54:03

really people can organize with , into action ? And

54:06

it's really , I

54:08

mean , eventually , and I don't know yet , right , there is

54:10

doubt , the product will be out soon and

54:13

we'll see if people can use it to

54:15

achieve large scale goals or not , and

54:18

I don't know , we'll see the future , but

54:22

only when actually asking , looking

54:24

at the screens and saying , okay

54:26

, we need a platform to do that . And

54:29

then suddenly there's so

54:32

many question come ups , so many question

54:34

come up . We actually try to make it

54:36

from an abstract idea into an actual

54:38

user interface that interact with

54:40

you . Yeah

54:45

, now , I appreciate that . I appreciate that

54:47

trying to build something to actually make

54:49

it work , no , where

54:51

, even if it wouldn't work

54:53

, like really fighting that battle , like fighting that

54:56

battle to bring this abstract

54:58

idea that we're talking about so many times into

55:01

an actual interface that you click and

55:03

it changes and you click and you interact with

55:05

people and seeing what works . And

55:07

I think that's something that , yeah

55:11

, we have to go through and

55:13

I really believe in that . Like I really

55:15

I don't know

55:18

, I can't wait to play with that . That's what I'm saying . So

55:20

, for example , the first thing we're going to do

55:22

literally that we're starting

55:24

next week just

55:26

happens . The first thing that I'm

55:28

interested to do is to start work as

55:30

a common , to continue developing common

55:32

like to practice and to eat

55:34

our own dog food . Like I just can't wait

55:36

to play with the product and see what

55:39

doesn't work , what works , what missing . I

55:43

just feel that this is this kind of like complex

55:45

product making you

55:47

cannot make without playing with it

55:49

. You cannot make . There's so much

55:51

you can achieve . And likewise I'm saying that

55:53

also in regard to your

55:55

question about the protocols

55:58

Like I just feel that there's just so

56:00

much you can go talking about in theory

56:02

before

56:04

actually taking a real world example

56:06

and breaking it down and building

56:09

a bad protocol and changing it to a better protocol

56:11

and so on and so forth . So

56:14

my bottom line is that I just can't wait

56:17

to take a real world community

56:20

, a real world scope

56:22

, real world collaboration and

56:25

so on , and start playing with

56:27

such products , these other products , and

56:30

even if it's like manually devised

56:33

protocols , rewarding protocols , anything

56:35

I just really playing with that on

56:37

the ground . That's what I'm really passionate

56:39

about right now .

56:40

Cool . Yeah , I wish

56:42

you the best of luck with common maybe

56:45

the last thing for people if you want to leave places

56:48

where people can find you , your

56:51

work and keep up with common as well

56:53

.

56:53

Sure , I mean it's just place

56:55

just to get to the homepage , which

56:57

is still the old homepage , but nevertheless

57:00

it's commonio . There

57:03

is a link there to the app . But

57:06

yeah , you need a link to a specific

57:09

common , to . Yeah

57:11

, actually I'm going to write a blog post about

57:13

it , so you can also just follow me

57:16

on Twitter or anything , or you can also

57:18

just mail me if you wish . Matanio

57:23

or matanio .

57:25

Cool , great Well . Thank you so much and

57:27

yeah , it was a pleasure to have you in

57:30

Zuzalu to help us with the workshopping for

57:33

coordination . Thank you so much .

57:35

Thank you , matan .