{ "metadata": { "transaction_key": null, "request_id": "metagov:shorttalks-metagov-20230510", "sha256": null, "created": "2025-10-27T23:38:02.610572+00:00", "duration": null, "channels": 1, "models": [ "metagov-manual" ], "model_info": { "metagov-manual": { "name": "metagov-manual", "version": "2025-10-01", "arch": "manual" } }, "warnings": null, "summary_info": null }, "results": { "channels": [], "utterances": [ { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 0.0, "end": 0.0, "transcript": "Cool. Yes. So yeah. So I I" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 15.0, "end": 15.0, "transcript": "Welcome, everybody. Yeah. Today is 05/10/2023, and this is our short talk seminar where we feature members of the community who have been doing work. Today we have Jialing Yin who has been a recipient of some funding from MinigoDAO to do some research on qualitative governance and decentralized contexts. So I'll pass over to Jiling who can briefly introduce themselves and then we'll give about ten, fifteen minute presentation. We'll then have a open discussion, questions, feedback, etcetera. You can leave your comments in the chat, and then we're a small group. So when we get to the discussion, we can also just unmute and ask questions as we as we see fit. So with that, I'll pass it over to Jiling, and if there's any other questions, just feel free to message me in the chat." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 30.0, "end": 30.0, "transcript": "Cool. Cool. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And yeah. And very to meet you all. Yeah. And I I heard that there are many also, many people are also industry PhD students. Yeah. So so which would be very great. Yeah. And and yeah. I'm now also an incoming industry PhD. Yeah. Yeah. So so very glad to have this opportunity, yeah, to show my research work journey to you all. Yeah. Yeah. And yeah. Okay. I can start to present, and I sent previous stats because another presenter was or is up absent absent. Yeah. So I can do a little bit more introduction, more than ten minutes. I think maybe about fifteen minutes. And then we can have also have more time for discussion, and feel free to give your critiques, feedback, and we can discuss, yeah, afterwards. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So our project decide a new way of the more decentralized than the existing one to make Web three more collaborative and productive. And we're seeing the developments of an online public service or digital work like digital media digital media of NFT, NFT, an online application, online platform should not be owned or controlled by any single identity, privately, including its founder. Everyone in public can not just use the work, but also they should have the right to really revise, improve, and contribute to the work itself because such public service or work is related to everyone in public. So we will start by analyzing the involvement from web web web web one, web two to web three, and then resetting the problems in the existing mode of online governance and the cooperation. Then we will con introduce the solution we decide to to try to address the on on slope issues, yeah, in today's online performance and collaboration. Then we will compare our solution with the existing mode of DAO in different perspective to show the strengths and the value of our solution. Finally, as our solution can be applied in different areas widely, we will display some, use case use cases for our solution in practice. Also, we will present our the value of our solution from different from the perspective of different stakeholders in our solution. Yeah. So, firstly, a a digital work like online kind of content and the services involve users who consume the work, creators who provide the work, and also the network who which connects users and the creators, and also the, the network manages the digital works. So WebOne makes users decentralized. But the creators of the digital works are still centralized. Users can read the digital works but not create or publish them. So and so Web two adjust this issue to make creators also decentralized. That everyone can not just read but also write and create their digital works in the network of Web two point zero. Yeah. Like like, online platforms. So but the problem is the network. So what the networks themselves become highly centralized in Web two, even more centralized than Web one, like online platforms. They are owned and contribute they are owned and controlled by a few people or a company in private. Not all not by all users and the creators in public. So Web3 ends at making the network of digital worlds fully decentralized to make the whole web decentralized from users, creators to network. So, basically, so so, basically, the production of each digital work within the network should be decentralized, which means that digital work can be freely and equally contributed and improved by everyone in public. Also, the organization of the work itself should be decentralized, which means the development and the upgrades of the network itself, like all, like, protocols, platforms, applications can be made by improved by everyone in public. In our solution so in our solution, we sync Web three cooperation and the the generation of the digital work, which will be fully decentralized, open, and equal to everyone in public, rather than controlled and predefined by anyone in private with privileges, including the it is in the initial owners or founders of the work. They can only those founders or or owners of the original work can only determine the first version of their work. And then any other people can in public, you can freely make any new work to directly upgrade the original version to new versions with new content or new new parts. All different new versions like new branches or forks can open and coexist for all users to freely to freely choose and use in the open market. The old original versions has no any privileges to limit or exclude any other new versions made by others based on ZEN and upgrading ZEN even if they are out of the expectation of the founder or owner of the original work. All new versions based on the original version will coexist and that they will share the endings with each other. For example, the new version will share the the endings with the original version as the return to the original version. As for the development and the implementation, we will make each version in our network fully composable, made by different interconnected parts, and the fully interoperable and compatible with new other new versions made by different people based on the original version. Each version can be composed of automatic and connected parts, like different components, functions, and features. Everyone can freely upgrade the original version of the content to new versions with the new content by changing, adding, or deleting some original parts in the original version to a new parts in the new version. But other unchanged original parts in the original version can seamlessly connect to the new parts in the new version to form the new version together. For example, you can see in version one, it can it can only contain the part one. And then, version two may be made by others. They add a a part two to the original part one to become the version two with both part one and the part two. And then, likewise, version three, for example, they you can change the, part one to part three, and the remainder part two changed. So part two and the part three becomes serverless. In order to fully open the internal cooperation and production of digital work with single individuals or centralized organizations to everyone in public, we tokenize not just each work but also each part and each version of each work in your network to enable them to compose any new works. Each token represents one part of one work, and all tokens are valuable in the open market for sales with the price calling and using it. When new versions get a token of any original parts in the original version, it means that the original version authorizes new versions can build their new works based on the original parts, and the new versions can contain the original parts in their works sharing the same user network. As incentives, new versions will pay for the original version every time when new versions call and use any parts of the original version. Yeah. So, for example, version one only contains part one, and as each part contains is is represented by one token, Version one only has token one representing part one. And then version two contains part one and a part three. So it it has two tokens. Token one representing part one and the token two representing part two. Likewise, version three contains token three token two representing this part two and token three representing this part three. So when user, for example, a user, if he likes or she likes version two, he will buy token one, token two. Because token one, token two phone, you if you need to buy version two or use version two, you'll need to buy it as token one, token two, token two. And then but token two token one token one is from the part one. It's not version one. So, actually, the earnings the the the what would the the the the the usage of token one in version two will go to the version one. Yeah. Because because token one is called from the version one. So if if the the version two need to needs to give the revenue, the earnings of the token one called from the version one to version one. So as although the founder or the the project gives some rights of governments to DAO to make it more decentralized than Web two platforms. It's the decentralized station of DAO is still highly limited, and the project owner or founder still has privileges over DAO. So in to compare the existing model of DAO with our solution. Firstly, in terms of eligibility to participate in DAO getting and holding certain amounts of government's token are needed. But our way of governance is open to everyone without any trust holder. So it is so everyone can participate in the governance. In terms of scope, the founder of the project can do anything anyways for its projects. But what can its style change and how to change to the project are determined are determined and are predefined by the owner in the beginning. On the contrary on the contrary contrary, in our way of DAO, everyone can revise and improve anything as seen as the founder of the project with our limitations. And the founder has no privileges to exclude any new works based on his or her original work. In terms of equality, the existing existing DAO follows one token, one vote. So more tokens you buy and get more government supplies you can pass than others. In our way of DAO, everyone is fully equal to upgrade the original works to any new works, and all new works can coexist equally. In terms of judgments, the judgment of value of a project or work. In our in the existing DAO, an improvement proposal needs to be charged and voted by token holders, and it can be approved and executed only after getting enough votes. Our solution is that no one can charge, include, exclude, or limit any work besides the final end users. All works are directly available in the open market for all users to choose and use. Good works, good works can send out from all works naturally via free market competition. Finally, as for incentives, in our in the existing DAO, if a good proposal makes the project better, the reward is that the price of the token will be increased, right, and the token holders can earn more. As a result, those big whales holding more most tokens more tokens enjoying the earnings of the DAO governments, not the actual contributors making and executing the good improvement proposal. Conversely, our solution reward the actual actual contributors corresponding to the earnings of the work they make. Yeah. So, finally, we can our network can cover different types of works to have widespread applications as long as they can be composed by different parts and that their values relies on their network. For example, a founder of an NFT collection can create for example, can first create a topic, and in the first version and then form a community gathering fence, token holders and users in favor of that topic. Then others can create different series for the topic as new versions based on the community. Following topics and the series, for following topics and the series, other people can create new the others can create different following topic series. Other people can decide any single NFT to phone collections. So, our our network and our, model of DAO can also get the developers to create different types of applications. For instance, in metaverse gaming like Roblox and Decentraland, the players can create their own games and earn more from their games by themselves. Right? However, they have no any way to cooperate with each other. So players cannot have no way to cooperate with different play other players to create better games together. So the other games created alone are still not as good as traditional games developed by organizations like three a three a Studio. Our network can enable our our mode of DAO can enable all players to freely and equally work together to create and earn more from their GANs in high quality, even better than those traditional GANs. Yeah. Because those traditional three a GANs, they they created by a studio. They have, like, thousands of workers, but so now in our network, we can gather as many as players to work together to create a better new game. Yeah. And, also, the as for the social network, the value of a social network application depends on the number of users and the content we see in network. Right? The more users and content the social network has, the more value the more the more valuable it will be. A fully inclusive and public social network also needs the voice of as many users as possible. However, in Web two point zero, users and the content are divided into different social applications. Each social network application is activated. On the contrary, in our network, all social media all social applications can fully open themselves and allow other social media, applications to freely improve them and, develop new social network with new features, functions, users based on them. In this way, all new social applications and all social applications share the same user network together rather than splitting being separated into different networks in isolation. Our network can also make DeFi protocols more to have full of composability and the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the For example, SushiSwap improves Uniswap with new features like governance token, but SushiSwap cannot be built based on Uniswap. So it has to create another new protocol by itself from scratch and then scramble users and the liquidity providers from Uniswap, which is called a Vibrant attack. With our network, with our model of our SushiStore, SushiSwap can improve Uniswap directly to make it better. And then Uniswap can open open and share its p p equity core, equity network with SushiSwap. As a result, we transform their competition into cooperation, which is a win win situation. So so finally, we can see, our network can benefit each participant. Our mode of Dao can benefit each participant in our network. So creators of the new work can as the creators of the original work, they can fully by fully opening their works and allowing others to upgrade them. Everyone can freely improve them and make them better with new works. So the so yeah. So they have the right and the freedom to improve, and new. Yeah. So so the original work contributes to the new works based on them. And new works will distribute their earnings with their original work as returns. So actually, the original work can earn earn more than not openings themselves and allowing others to upgrade. So and then also their original work work can become become better. And that they don't need to have to they don't need to finish the whole work from the beginning. We can just finish little single parts in the beginning, and others will finish other parts to make a whole work together. As for the creators of the new work, they have the right and freedom to freely improve anywhere of any digital and original work with no limitations or exclusion from the creators of the original works. Based on the original works, new works share the same space with original work, including user network data, content, and resources. So they don't need to build from scratch starting from nothing, which benefits a lot. All new works can coexist and be directly put in the market for users to choose and buy rather than being selected and limited by creators of the original work first, which gives creators the freedom and opportunities to produce that much better new works of the installation and the prediction of the creators of the original work. Finally, under the contribution and cooperation of everyone, users can have better works in higher quality to use made and improved by different people in public with no limitation, hierarchy, central planning, or control. As different people can create and upgrade different works and that all works can coexist. Users can choose from all kinds of works to meet their different demands. All new and original works share the same states in the user network, so users can freely switch among different folks to use the best one, without the the, like, worrying about being logged in by any single application. Yeah. So so their account's data assessed and contents will not be looked by any original work. You can't because they show that you've stand user network. Yeah. So, yeah, that's all. Thank you very much, and I look forward to receiving your golden critiques and feedback. Yeah. And, also, any questions or critiques, feel free to, ask me. Yeah. And we can discuss together. Yeah. So, actually, I think my my, I think, there are some still some, like, improvements that can be made or some questions can be asked in our work because, for example, in our economy model, it is very I think it is still a little bit ideal ideal also, and it can be more practical, yeah, and also with not so much assumption. Yeah. Thank you very much." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 45.0, "end": 45.0, "transcript": "Great. Thank you so much for the presentation and the thoughts. So I can start us off with a question. And while I'm doing that, I thought people have questions that they wanna ask or they're kind of forming their thoughts. Feel free to raise your hand or post a message in the chat, and then we can bring them up for discussion. So I guess one thing that I'm curious about I shared this this link to this jury protocol gallery's project, and I I guess there's two things I'm curious about. One is the the the network seems to be covering a very broad range of media. And so is there any particular reason to focus on such a broad range of media instead of a particular type of media? And then within there, like, how do you deal with governance scenarios where someone makes an upgrade, and there's some kind of disagreement about the kind of way that that upgrade represents the original artwork. Even if it's not, like, copyright claim, there might still just be some kind of social normative conflicts that emerge. And I'm wondering if there are any kind of resolution elements that come up in this kind of upgrading context from a governance perspective." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 60.0, "end": 60.0, "transcript": "Yeah. So so you mean the range of my the the range of our mode is very broad. Right? So so you mean we so so so you you you thought we we, maybe some some kind of contents we can we cannot cover it. Is that what you mean?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 75.0, "end": 75.0, "transcript": "Not that I doubt it. I'm just curious to hear why you made that decision and why not focus on a specific type of area or medium." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 90.0, "end": 90.0, "transcript": "Oh, yeah. Yeah. So yeah. Because because we actually stand for a very high voice. So so we try to reflect on the existing mode of DAO. Yeah. You know, general mode mode of DAO. You need you know, general mode mode of DAO is that people need to have some kind of governance token to join the DAO, and then they have some need need some they need to vote on the improvement proposal using their governance token, and then only those improvement proposals getting enough governance token can they pass the approve the improvement proposals and execute them. Yeah. So so and this mode of DAO actually is also very general. It has many it can be applied in different applications. So you can see NFTs, the apps, even the system, blockchain system itself can be you can use such mode of DAO. Yeah. Yeah. So so itself is also also has widespread applications. But we for our research, we just reflect on such kind of mode of Dao. Yeah. And we we we try to improve it to resolve some issues in in within it. Yeah. And then we because so so so our new way of DAO also has widespread widespread applications. Right? Theoretically, if what the original model of DAO can be applied, can also be applied in our new model DAO. Right? So so and and we want to let the audience, the our our, audience know our users know the value of our applications because of our DAO. Because if we just say a very general mode of DAO of of our DAO, it will be very broad and very abstract. Users may know know the value of our the specific value of our DAO in details. Yeah. So if we give some examples, give some voice verifications, people can understand it more easily. Also, although so so and also, I think we can start a phone. For example, some NFTs, some multimedia digital media work that could be easier. And then we can extend our applications to the apps, which is more sophisticated because it is programmed programmed, yeah, in this coding. And even we can use we can transform the, upgrade of the whole blockchain to such a model DAO in the future. Yeah. So so it it sounds like a composability for the the blockchain fully composed of blockchain. Right? So so that's why we show our the applications, many many different kinds of applications in our, your presentation. Yeah. But we we think, they are all applicable in our model DAO. Yeah. As long as your digital work can be composed by different parts, and as long as your digital the value of your digital work relies on relies on user network, like community, like user network. Yeah. You you I I ideally, your digital work can use such a mode of doubt to, yeah, to become better. Yeah. Mhmm." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 105.0, "end": 105.0, "transcript": "And then on the question of, like, conflict resolution or governance?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 120.0, "end": 120.0, "transcript": "Confluence." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 135.0, "end": 135.0, "transcript": "Conflict, like, a a kind of dispute. So earlier, I I had asked if, you know, what happens in this context of this network if someone decides to update someone else's work, and the the original creator feels as though the update is, I don't know, offensive or" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 150.0, "end": 150.0, "transcript": "Yeah. Yeah. Yeah." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 165.0, "end": 165.0, "transcript": "And so I'm just curious how you kind of deal with those kinds of, like, social kind of disputes that might emerge in the the system that you've set up." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 180.0, "end": 180.0, "transcript": "Yeah. Yeah. This is the question, very possible questions. I we are most being asked, yeah, when we present our project to others. Yeah. So so far, we've seen so so we say the value of the DG work who works should be depend on the it is underlying user network, a community behind. It's community behind. Yeah. So you can copy the original work easily and then then make a new works based on the the original work. For example, you can copy the picture and then make a new picture based on that or copy the original picture and then give it to somewhere else to somebody else. But you cannot copy the it is community. You cannot copy. It is the network behind. Right? So in in in this network contains many users, many resources, many content behind it. Yeah. So, like, for example, the social network, the the value of the social network is not the program itself. It's not the application itself. It is the user network behind it. So you can copy the code code of the social network to make a new social network application, but you cannot call the copy the the user relationship, the social network users behind, the relationship behind. So which is the real value of the social network application. So so if you want to use the real value of the social application, for example, you you you want to utilize the their users behind them, not just create another social applications that nothing in in your new application. Nobody in your new application. You need if you if you want to do so, you need to still need to view your social network based on those original social network. Yeah. And and then you still need to yeah. Yeah. You still need to upgrade the based on them. Yeah. So you can you can definitely right. You can you can definitely create another new application by yourself. But you it's it's nothing. Yeah. You you nothing will be contained in the in your new new application. So it's not for use. Yeah. So it it so we still need to rely on the original application. It it already has many users. Yes. A very successful, powerful user network, like, community. Yeah." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 195.0, "end": 195.0, "transcript": "Cool. We have a question from Yanis, and then Kishore has a hand up, so we can go in that order. Yanis?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 3", "start": 210.0, "end": 210.0, "transcript": "Yes. I have two questions. Let me start with the second one, which was inspired by your last your last comment about what is the true value of the of the the platform. And it is indeed the, you know, the the user content and relations. So my question is, how would monetization be a portion and shared between, like, the platform creators and coders versus the users? How would you make the whole monetization, a scheme, like, transparent so people feel that, you know, each gets their values worse from their participation and use in the in the network. That's that's my first question." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 225.0, "end": 225.0, "transcript": "Thank you. Thank you. So you mean so you mean how to make the distribution of the earnings of each work fail. Right? Is that what you mean?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 3", "start": 240.0, "end": 240.0, "transcript": "Right. Right. Right. Because because because I feel that there is of course, there's gonna be a a value attached, let's say, on the NFT, but then there there's gonna be a a markup or a surplus value that's gonna be attached because of the traffic because of the of the community effect. And I'm wondering how that surplus is gonna be who's gonna pocket that, and how is that surplus be be transparent on how it's created if it's, like, an auction process or something like that? You know? How how is that gonna be made transparent to to to the users?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 255.0, "end": 255.0, "transcript": "Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We also consider this point in our token model, you know, economic model. So, for example for example, you you made a new work. Right? For for example, you made a work, and you issue a token for for your work to reflect the the the value of your work. And, also, you can earn from your token. Right? So, for example, your work can has a token here, and then you you sell the your token for a while. Right? So and then your token has a price, in the market, which can ref We assume we assume it can really reflect the the full value of your work. Okay. Then another person upgraded your work. And, for example, he may he added some new functions, new features to become a new version of your work. And then, yeah, your your work becomes the old version, original version. So we say this version two, for example. And then, the version two also contains the original work of your version one. Right? For example, your your your after market validation, your original worker, the the price the the value of your original one is $10.10 $10, for example. And then version two can the version two containing your original version one is on sale. Right? For example, the version two also is available in the market and then for sale. So after a while, the version two can sell for 20, we we say, for for for $30. Okay. For $30. So but it it contains the your original work. Right? It contains your original work. So and then your original work sales for the price, the value of your original work is $10. So it means what? It means it means that your work is $10, and the version two the unique parts in version two the new parts in the version two is is sold for $20. Right? So so so $10 plus $20 is three equals to $30. So the or so the origin so the new version the value of the new version is $30, but the the new version contains your old version, right, your version one. So, actually and and your version one is $10. So, actually, your, so so the version two, the the real value of the unique part, the new part in version two is $20. So after the version two earns $30, for example, He needs to distribute distribute $10 to you to your new new version one. And then finally, version two only earns $20. Yes. So so this is how how we assume it can work. So yeah. So so in this way, the value of each work can be reflected. And if you use the new work if you use the original work to build your new work, no problem. It's no problem. But you need to give the give back your earnings to the original work to because yeah. Yeah. To to to to as as written. Yeah." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 3", "start": 270.0, "end": 270.0, "transcript": "Thank you. So from what I understand, this is all based on a subjective view. There is no way to build in an objective estimate. For example, like hours worked or, you know, or how many other components have been integrated, and then what is their objective economic value? It looks like it's on it's subjective. Am I am I understanding that correctly?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 285.0, "end": 285.0, "transcript": "Yeah. The how to price the work has different ways. Yeah. You have different ways to price the work. But, ideally, I think the price should be determined by the market. Yeah. Yeah. So so, for example, you put your work into the market, and then after a while, the the market will determine the price for your work. Yeah. But we we you the the the it is up to the creator of the work. Right? So so the creator can only also say, my work is at a fixed price. Yeah. We I I I just make my the price of my work $10. Yeah. If you want to use my work, just pay $10. Yeah. It also works, but, yeah, it's up to up to the the the creator of the of the work. Yeah." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 3", "start": 300.0, "end": 300.0, "transcript": "Thank you." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 315.0, "end": 315.0, "transcript": "Great. Thank you, Yanis. I'm trying to remember who we had next. Kishore?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 4", "start": 330.0, "end": 330.0, "transcript": "Yeah. So so, I mean, like, based on this this diagram that you that you just showed, it reminds me of, like, a GitHub commit history, which is essentially like an open source ecosystem, people building things together. So so you could consider getting some data from GitHub to measure your simulated model as well. So so that was one point. And the other point is if you if if the system actually ends up working, it's kind of like you're getting benefits for contributing, which is which is kind of different than what the freelancer economy is. Right? Because you just get funds from some organization, you do the work, and then you move on to another work. But then through the system, if I understand correctly, you're kind of making the worker also be invested in how the system progresses. So I'm wondering your thoughts on, like, if I'm a if I'm an individual who is looking for a job, would I should I go through the freelance economy route or go through something like this? Or do you see them" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 345.0, "end": 345.0, "transcript": "Yeah. Thank you for your yeah. Thank you for your comments. Yeah. For your first question, yeah, we are something like decentralized GitHub. Yeah. Previously, other people also said that we are something like similar to GitHub because it's just like different branches. Right? So so one people create a worker, and the other people can create new folks, new branches based on his original work. Yeah. But but we just permission this permission this upgrades. Right? So so, you don't need to get a permission of the original work to create your branch or brand brand branch or fork based on the original work. Yeah. You can you can you are free to create any new branch, new fork based on the original work. But we have two I think we have two different difference between the the our work our our model work and the, GitHub. Yeah. Yeah. Or or the core open source core open source project. Because, firstly, open source, it just for free. Right? So so it doesn't have economic model. So it won't it won't distribute the earnings of one work with other original work that actually contributing to the earnings of the new work. Yeah. So I think I I really think this is why open source is very good and and but it doesn't make very sense make make much sense. Right? So because our in our in our world today, most platforms, software are made in business, right, in dot by by by or a closed source business companies because we don't have a we don't have a economy model for the open source. People are just work for free. Right?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 4", "start": 360.0, "end": 360.0, "transcript": "Yeah. Yeah. But I just I" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 375.0, "end": 375.0, "transcript": "just meant" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 4", "start": 390.0, "end": 390.0, "transcript": "to comment that this could be adapted very well into the open source community." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 405.0, "end": 405.0, "transcript": "Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, actually, the the open the the free software movement, so they all they they they also say, right, free is not the price. It's just the right. Right? So so free software can also have its price. But but but, actually, they they couldn't really without Blockchain, right, without in without Web three, they couldn't really build such a economic model to really make a a free software have the the chance to charge. Right?" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 420.0, "end": 420.0, "transcript": "So so" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 435.0, "end": 435.0, "transcript": "because when you get a copy and then when you distribute a copy, the original creator didn't know didn't know have no way to know you already distribute a copy, the the tall copy, and and also others cannot pay the original creator. Right? So so they don't have such a way, but I think blockchain provides such a way. Yeah. Yeah. And then secondly, the the the second difference is that the the new worker will not share the the user network in the original work. Yeah. So so so, for example, Twitter. Right? So, actually, in the beginning, Twitter allows other social applications to share, to to connect the user network of Twitter. Yeah. So so in the beginning, they they do some they enable such things. But with Twitter going up, they close their API. Yeah. So so other use social applications cannot connect to the user network of Twitter because because Twitter wants to become monocularly. Right? So so so and they won't share. They they actually, it's also because they have no way to for Twitter to share the profits, to share the earnings when they share the their network to to use other social applications. And and yeah. So so even if they help, they their user so user network help other social applications to grow up. Right? So but they could not has no way to get the corresponding earnings from this way. Yeah. Yeah. So so, actually, we also provide such a way. We try to provide such a way to to, for for something like Twitter. They can share their user network with others, but they can also earn from such sharing." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 450.0, "end": 450.0, "transcript": "And and" }, { "speaker": "Speaker 1", "start": 465.0, "end": 465.0, "transcript": "for your second question yeah. For second question, yeah, we we we also like some kind of, like, freelance platforms like fiber. Right? So so yeah. Yeah. But, yeah, fiber is centralized. Right? So so we are just, like, decentralized. Yeah. Yeah. And and and actually, Fiverr Fiverr, the the the the people who are creating the task has the control. Right? Has the control. He can decide which one which work is is is is good. I I I pay for which work and which person can work for me. I think he he is the suitable person. But but in our network, it it doesn't have such limitations. Right? Everyone can create any work based on any original work. Yeah. And the the the old founder, creator has no right to exclude any work used by others. Yeah. Yeah. The the the all works can coexist, and the end users will determine the fate of each work finally. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So so I think you should choose our our platform. Yeah. Our network. Yeah. Yeah." }, { "speaker": "Speaker 2", "start": 480.0, "end": 480.0, "transcript": "Great. Thank you very much for your questions and your responses. I think we'll have to close out the seminar now. But, Jialing, if you'd like, I invite you to share your email in the chat. I think there are some more questions that people on the in the room have. So feel free to just type that into the chat so people can follow-up with you afterwards. I think it's also at the bottom of the slide here. And let's briefly unmute and give our presenter a round of applause in three, two, one. Super. Thank you so much again. I'm gonna end the recording now." } ], "summary": null } }