{
  "metadata": {
    "transaction_key": null,
    "request_id": "metagov:ecsa-2-metagov",
    "sha256": null,
    "created": "2025-10-27T23:38:00.398066+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": "Okay. We're gonna begin the, our presentation today, which is the second in a series of conversations, with, with Exa, the Economic Space Agency. So we'll hear from, Excelli, Petko, and and Jonathan from from the Economic Space Agency. Take it away."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 15.0,
        "end": 15.0,
        "transcript": "Cool. Hey. Thanks. So I'll I'll just very quickly, start and conjecture contextualize the what what what's about to come. So so first of all, it's important to understand that EXO, Economic Space Agency, we are really an an explicitly and essentially an an experiment in an organization. So we we've kind of really are trying to from the beginning of the project we've we've tried we've understood that what we are actually doing is that we're trying to figure out together this form, this new form of organization which would correspond to our subjectivity. So we're not after a community, we're not after a corporation or a cooperative which we understood understand that the kind of are these forms which belong to the last century and we've been experimenting trying to find out this this this organizational form and I think we are not the only ones but but it's it's in the time. The time is like like requiring or needing this this new new form. And so so as a project, we we have, like, a road in the in the Slack in the seminar channel there. We have, like, legal formal legal organizations. We have a a a Delaware c corporation. We have a Swiss foundation. We have a cooperative in Finland. We have an also an association in Switzerland. And these are like the league it's like like an our organic formal legal organizational toolbox which we are using these different forms as tools for different purposes. And then in addition, we have this what we call this protocol organization or this virtual protocol organization, kind of what the DAOs are after too and and we have had different iterations of that. So so just to understand like what we're doing now, it's a little important to to understand the history history a little bit. So back in 2016 when we set up the first one which is called the Econout Cyber Partnership organization and it was we had a there's a partnership agreement. It's more like a manifesto, but it has bylaws and we set up this this cyber organization. And and but the key problems of this first iteration were were really that when the when the conflict hit and they they always do in the team, it turned out that how we were organized was pretty much like this convention or norm based. So there weren't really rules which we could could have kind of, when this situation got heated and and we didn't know how to do how to deal with it. We didn't have like the rules where to rely on how to help the end the the problematics or the conflict in the team and and after it has it had been going on like for four months, everybody even the working parts in the organization were so drained emotionally that it was just like we were so burned out of this of this incident and and the second generate second iteration of our protocol organization then which is the second line there was then kind of for a, like, a solution or or response to the to the problems of the of the first one. And, it's it was like a we we we understood that we need these rules, better organization, these these these rules and and it was like a library of protocols, how we designed it. And it was like a federated nodes. There were nodes which which federated together and it's called the space space protocol. There was a handbook of of of how to handbook for creating an organization and and kind of it was such a relief when we at this point then had these rules with which we could actually well rely on and we could use them to to organize ourselves. And we we became pretty quickly also very creative with these rules and how to express our relations with them and and and soon it turned out that it started to become too complex and too heavy. Too heavy so so and and that we as a members we were not so ready for this kind of a rule based organization either. It was difficult to to relate relate into this kind of an organization and at the same time then our, like a basic income, the first grants to the from the foundation to the associate association ended and it became like a kind of went from the other end from this more effective community type of organization to the other end, with with a very strict formal rules how we interact and engage with us with with each other. And and now what we really want to talk about is the third iteration where which which we think is is an elegant solution to the to these problems, which is called the exacortex or the distributed exa. And maybe Bekker you could turn that on, kind of, which is, it's kind of designed as a solution to to to our experience of this organ organizing. So it's it's explicitly and this is also shared in the in the slide. It's like explicitly rights based organization. So it's like structures of rights. The entire organization is structured now like that and and maybe Peko, would you like to like take it on from here? Like why why is that? What's the what's the point that we use the use the rights as as the key lego lego blocks for the organization?"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 3",
        "start": 30.0,
        "end": 30.0,
        "transcript": "Sure. And that allows us also to move to the slides. But, yeah, the key reason why is also kind of along the lines of the guiding questions we wanted to put to the session. But in a summary, we think as rights as we conceive or reconceive it, I would maybe stress that it's not quite the historical concept of rights, but it's rather a certain kind of structural read of why they were so central in, especially, the birthing moments of state structures and so on and what what is structurally potential in them. And in a nutshell, in a kind of design heuristic nutshell, I would say that they form a Lego piece that can be used to construct what we con con consider as governance, but they can be also used to construct what we consider as economy and the different conventions in each. That is if one thinks of something like an example of, like, a protocol of voting. You can kind of construct it from the sense of, first of all, whoever is a member or participant or an able participant in this voting has a right, perhaps to vote. They might have a right also to propose. Both of these would address different parts of a protocol. And and then once one would go through a voting protocol itself, the protocol itself would have a right, for example, to take some assets from an organization and move them to a person who made the proposal for what was defined in the proposal proposal in the first place. So we're looking at the rights really functioning as a leg of peace that that everything that is in the proposal engine and the protocol of voting as capable of constructing out of rights. But, similarly, if we take something like certain paradigms of economy, let's, for example, take ownership. The ownership in itself is a very fussy concept. Like, ownership of a car is different from ownership of a house and so on and so forth. It it and I think, for us, the clearest way to put it is it's a kind of amalgamate of rights that you have rights to open your car and rights to loan it and etcetera. But it's an amalgamate because these things have kinda melded together, and and there's no kind of analytic to this. But everything that is inside an ownership can be produced from a rights model. And furthermore, as we, I think, are coming to a time not just with crypto, but including cryptoeconomics, etcetera, and crypto governance, where we have to go beyond just saying I own this, whatever that is. The rights offer the possibility of breaking down and forming tailorable forms of that kind of do the same thing as ownership, but do it in a much more exact and designed manner. Like, I have my rights to an organization might not be ownership, might not be even an equity structure, but it might be that I have right to make proposals, but I don't have a right to vote. I have right to make proposals and vote. I have a right to propose, and and I have certain ratio to voting, etcetera etcetera. So in this sense, like, something like an ownership also breaks down into rights, but the rights also point out how we can view it in a much more expressible, flexible, and pieceidable manner once we get over once we get beyond this in itself a fussy concept like an ownership. But it also proves to this key point that what we consider as economy and finance and what we consider as governance are essentially dependent on each each other. Like, if we look at something like a token like unit or even something like an equity unit, What really is the basis of the value is the organizations that allow them to operate, like an exchange, like organizations that back up and authorize them. Like, for example, in a fiat currency, this can be related to the organization of the state. But, of course, crypto these organizations might be the holders or upkeepers, the maintainers, etcetera. But remove all of those organization. Let's say, remove all the organizations that allow for interactions, exchanges, remove the developers, and those tokens or equities don't hold any value. So in this sense, like, something like a token, it's better to not view as a store of anything, but more like a piece of mirror. And what it mirrors is the organizations that enable its functionality. The token itself does not hold anything. And and this, of course, ends up in a situation where we are looking at an intertwining between governance and economy itself. Like, those organizations have to be built by governance principles and yet and then they can allow for economy. So for these reasons, we think it's a key design starting point and a point of composition to have a piece that works as a leg of peace for both governance and economy. So that's that's the key interest in rights. But another key concept we have is an organization, and this is also not quite the traditional historical sense of organization. Maybe the easiest way to understand it is, like, to start again from rights and and note that it would be impossible to create a right that flows floats solely in in in emptiness. The the only way that right has any right to itself is that it creates a network with other rights. And here, we can refer back to the voting example. That voting protocol is a network of rights. It connects to users who have rights to it, and then that protocol itself has rights, for example, moving assets. And only by this network of rights, we can have actual functionality from rights themselves. Beyond that, once we have this sort of networks of rights, they actually become birthplaces for rights. And this is not even new. It's how even company works. How you have rights in your workplace is that that organization that the company is is the source of generating new rights for its scope or its subscopes. And this in itself is another, let's say, a design principle, but a certain kind of lucidity of way of looking at organization and its possibilities, but also looking at possibilities of governance. And we also think that it kind of points out certain tendencies in in, let's say, DeFi culture and why DeFi actually has, even with the tool that is very limited towards organization, heavily, heavily emphasized kind of organizational direction because that's the possibility for them to actually create more complex economies they're created within the organizations they become. So this is the key, let's say, the first way, heuristically, to look at organization. It is the network of rights. And and by that, it also becomes the birthplace of rights in none of themselves. But with this model, like combining rights and creating networks out of them, by our testing, you can create a Centella version of any legacy organizational structure and and create the functional model out of it. It. It's like the house with Lego, the car with Lego, etcetera. But beyond that, you are able also to look at organization in a wider sense, in the senses that have not been created yet. And and because you have constantly the possibility of building towards what we call them, the nation only think of as economy and conventionally think of as organization, you can always make hybrids in and of themselves, like like organization that creates this token structure, etcetera, is using the same medium. But then one key point from this in a in a practical design sense is that from this model, a user is ultimately an organization. And this one can concretize by, let's say, even using something like Facebook as an example. Like, what is the user there? It is a vessel of rights or at least can be analyzed as a vessel of rights that it has a right to post post or an image, etcetera, and these become available in the context that it governs within the rights that it has. And the user itself, the person is really not in the platform. It's more like the user enters a car, and it's the car that is in the world, not the user. But that also means that the car itself, the vessel, has an organizational form because it's a network of rights. And, similarly, we can think of as an object or what we think of as an objectuality. An example of this would be if we don't think of, let's say, an artwork as a work or an object in a physical sense, but in this network of economy, it is, first of all, for example, a rights to its sketches, and then it becomes an organization of rights to hold it or rent it or own it, or it becomes a right to remix it, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. All of these are actually a much more wider scope of the existence of that object, both economically and organizationally, and and, therefore, and organizationally, and and, therefore, open up a wider sense of the relations that, that, object can be. But in itself, returns to the same formal approach that an organization does in a traditional sense or user sense. Object does the same. Now there are some other nerdy parts, but there there is a kind of a very minimalized model of producing these right structures and and organization from there. And this this may be a topic for another time, but we have this model of approaching definition from two ways, from actuality and potentiality. But maybe for now, because the time is running short and and also in the interest of kind of being more practical about it, I could maybe more move to what do we do with this and what are we doing with this. Actually, I already started this by referring to the exacordex, which is an example of one experiment of how to express this. It's not the only form of ex expression, and it's also not the only form that we're developing. But we have been forming out different practical ways of utilizing this grammar approach and using them to explore new forms of organization. Towards these forms of expression, I think we are still in a kind of alpha stage. I think the principles are more stable. The principles, for example, expressed here. But this is a form, I I think, we we are kind of highly interested in experimenting with others. It it is a ground that actually has the benefits of describing for organizations and economies for programming because it's highly close, even though it's not the same, to a paradigm called object capabilities, which is a rights based form of programming, essentially. So in and of themselves, these expressions are moving the structures that we create closer to programmability. But at the same time, it is a playground. It is a ground of conceiving, communicating, and potentially even exploring also outside of programming in the real world. We are, for example, thinking physical experiments in places in Berlin of three weeks of a particular organization. And this goes to the exploring of the unknown mentioned in the slide, the art of organization. The point is to also try to give form the things that are are possible but yet unknown. And and this area is something I think we're strongly looking for different kind of collaborations, collaborations that don't really have to kind of follow the forms of expression or the paradigms we have developed, but more like maybe find ways that people could even mutate or or recreate these kind of things for themselves, both in terms of their final forms or forms created from it or in in terms of the expressions themselves. So so that's that's something an undertaking we're doing, as mentioned in the beginning, for ourselves to eat our own dog food. But at the same time, it is something we are looking as a way to collaborate with others in different kinds of forms from and and to real world organization. So that's, I think, a good place to stop. I probably talked too long and and gives the voice to someone else."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 45.0,
        "end": 45.0,
        "transcript": "Okay. Thank you. Does does anyone else in your team want to wanna, you know, just add anything before we get into into questions?"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 60.0,
        "end": 60.0,
        "transcript": "Well well, maybe I'll I'll just say one thing, which I put in the chat, which is really the to me, the the commonality for many of the ex endeavors is the recognition of the that the kind of ideas about the ontology of various social forms are come as if they were verities, but in fact they're historical formations. And so breaking down organization, breaking down things like the commodity form, breaking down the money form, breaking down ideas about the market into into various acts of abstraction and embedded abstraction abstraction embedded in material sociality allows us to sort of see the way they've been composed and begin the recomposition process. So, in a way, what Peko just described as far as I understand it is, a recognizing rights as a potential building block for organizations of any scale. But we've done similar things with the idea of liquidity, and issuance where, you know, the monetary protocols, in contemporary capitalism rely upon central banks and certain ideas around issuance and prices for credit. We've we conceived these protocols as a way as a way of imagining that we could do peer to peer issuance and basically build a network of peers in which peers could grant one another liquidity. So that's an example of sort of seeing the protocol realization of various actions as the informing structure of what we take to be objects or truths that can be decomposed and recomposed, and that's kind of the general project."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 75.0,
        "end": 75.0,
        "transcript": "Josh has a just quick response, then we'll get on to some questions."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 6",
        "start": 90.0,
        "end": 90.0,
        "transcript": "Hi. Thanks, Jonathan. I guess I just wanted to ask. So you were talking about these ontologies as sort of social historical verities. And I wanted to ask, like, on what degree does UCSA engage with these different ontologies? And then maybe there's, like, a couple of different options. Like, something that, I think that Seth can speak to because, something that we've been, kind of project we've been collaborating with a couple other mathematicians and economists is, you know, we're kind of encountering the fact that, like, economists and, like, people who do organizations have very different thoughts, at least in academia. Right? They consider very different questions, speaking very different languages. And, you know, posing sort of, like, it's been so far been really hard to match these, like, different languages and concerns at a level. It just just as a question of, like, introduce introduce for any science. Right? But there's, of course, there's also more specific kinds of ontologies where, like, people literally list out, like, you know, like, rights, roles, I don't know, like, tokens, like economics, like constitutional amendments. Like, there's different, like, sort of, like, very sort of, like, concrete ontologies that people had built to sort of classify these different organizational structures as well as economic structures. And do you engage with any specific one of these ontologies? Just curious."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 105.0,
        "end": 105.0,
        "transcript": "Well, that's that's a great question, and it's actually in a way that goes to the core of, the the project. And when I think about the fruits of our labor over the years, I suppose we're arriving at a set of, we're we're kind of reimagining the grammar of organization and economy, and, we're we've discovered or invented, I think it's actually closer than discovery, a set of metapragmatic primitives. Right? And, we talked about a little bit about that last time. But it is does have to do with liquidity and the issuance of what we think of as money. Right? Where credit is a very complex and socially mediated structure that is protocolized in a certain way in current social could actually be issued peer to peer and in different societies is issued peer to peer although it's not quantified. So we wanna sort of match the benefits of abstraction and quantification which have come out through the history of capitalism to a peer to peer architecture and then in order to create another kind of liquidity. So that is like I mean that so I would say that that that in an economy, liquidity is one of these sort of at this point fundamental or ontological functions which maybe not not maybe not thrown from the universe or the cosmos but are sort of where we ended up historically. But that's some that's that's sort of like, a hard space that we want to think about the protocolization of. Another one would be stake. Right? What we normally think of as equity. How do we sort of imagine and the fashion that Pekka was talking about aspects of ownership in such a way that they're composable and also combinable. Right? The sharing of stake means that two two or more parties can actually take what we think of as an asset and bundle it with other people's assets in order to create descriptive performance to actually compose a kind of a new kind of a new form of agency, which would be about record keeping or a ledger, but also about choreography because we require sequence. So the sharing of stake is another one of these sort of primitive functions in economy that we think was also related. Cool."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 120.0,
        "end": 120.0,
        "transcript": "Can I continue from Jonathan a little bit?"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 135.0,
        "end": 135.0,
        "transcript": "Yeah, please."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 150.0,
        "end": 150.0,
        "transcript": "Okay. Okay. So so yeah. Hey. Thanks, Josh. A really quick question and kind of from we do engage in in in some some particular ontologies in a sense in the in the economic paper for instance. It's especially Marx, but also Hayek, Keynes and which kind of for the entire, like, the economic economic thinking which which we need to move to the information age. And kind of those those we are we are trying to deconstruct all of them in a way that we can actually reconstruct them, towards the the direction what Jonathan was just describing. Then there's an an other really important part also in the team. So so Jonathan is a media theorist. We talk about economic media, really. I'm an economist, political economist, Bequest, game designer. We have programmers, different like a people from different areas coming together and we've struggled but also kind of try to move everybody from their most most native language into this new space or new terrain where we all are a little bit uncomfortable, but we need to, like, come up with the new new words, new grammar in order to actually understand what is going on and what how we can operate here. And that that's kind of for the EXCEPT project and and which makes us at least excited excited."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 3",
        "start": 165.0,
        "end": 165.0,
        "transcript": "Just a short addition. I'll keep it short because I'm kind of jumping in. But, like, to the practical question of, like, what have you done between the sort of different design cultures between organization and economy, which one, by the way, I would agree with. There are fields actually that one can use to at least experiment or find forms where the division is not that large, and I'll give an example. Board games. Board games, first of all, actually can be broken into this kind of rights. I haven't found a board game that you couldn't actually completely analyze fully analyze by this model. But the point structures in board games tick almost every box of a token structure. The only difference is that there is an order of magnitude more different models of points in board games than we have, at least currently, in token mode. But board games are also about people organizing together and so on. And this might be their beacon point, but then even if you add role playing games, which are much more about that, you have a field that is not, like, one to one. You cannot directly use this. But that gives you, hey. What about this form? There is no token form like this. What about this organization form? What about this decision form? And on all of that, it's raw material, potentially tailorable. And that's one direction we are systematically exploring."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 180.0,
        "end": 180.0,
        "transcript": "K. Thank you. Maren?"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 7",
        "start": 195.0,
        "end": 195.0,
        "transcript": "Hi. I'm excited to be here. I am not an academic, so I apologize. But I did actually watch Jonathan a video of yours. I'll link it for the group's benefit. A peer to peer value creation system, which seems pretty relevant to this conversation. Yeah. You know, which talk I'm I'm referring to. There we go. So the thing that I found really interesting at at about 08:45 or so in this talk, you refer to essentially, like, a peer to peer system as a means of assigning credit where you can imagine there are, like, legacy institutions that assign credit in these, like, kind of top down organizational ways. And the thing the thing that I find interesting the more that we explore, like, the token space and just, like, thinking about organizational structure is that the way that we started Interact, which is a fellowship organization and I'll I'll give okay. I'm Erin. I started an organization called Interact. It's a fellowship of young technologists. We accept people between the ages of 18 and 23. It's very global. We have accepted 500 people since 2012. And the way that this happens is essentially peer to peer. I've always referred to our application process and our admission model as as being pretty decentralized. So there's referral on the part of the entire community. Hundreds of referrals get made every year. We only end up in fact accepting 50 to a 100 new fellows in any given year. All of these people themselves, of course, are technologists, so somewhat value creative. But the thing that's very interesting looking back in time now at this, like, kind of distributed application acceptance model, which is very different than, like, the top down admissions process of a Harvard, for example, is that the community of existing Interact Fellows itself chose really phenomenal people to join into this network. Right? So we can now look back and say, what did the people who we accepted in 2012, 2013, 2014 go on to do? How valuable were the organizations and the contributions that they went on to make and interact in this, like, peer to peer distributed acceptance model has has outperformed, like, the best venture capital firms in the world at at choosing people and and bringing them into this network. We've had no real skin in the game because we've had no capital to give to these people upon their acceptance into this model. And so they're, like, economic value capture component or an an ability to, you know, be the first people to front the fact that we are assigning explicit credit to these people to go on to do the work which they're which they're interested in doing. And this is this is a lot of, like, where our thinking has led us to and and the reason we're we're here. But, anyways, point is if if anybody's interested in talking more about, like, the the peer the opportunities of peer to peer model in credit assignment, I would I would be thrilled."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 210.0,
        "end": 210.0,
        "transcript": "Just a quick response. I mean, thank you so much, Miranda. That's fascinating. I'm gonna read more about your organization. It's really wonderful to hear about. You know, you mentioned the success of your of your process of value creation, and I think it's really interesting on the one hand that by a metric the common metric of of valuation, the you compare yourself with the venture capitalist saying you've done a lot better. But probably by other standards, you've also done a lot better, in turn and and one of the things we're interested in doing with peer to peer issuance is creating, the persistence of qualitative values on on on on the value signal or in the or in what's normally thought of as a price system. Because capitalism, as we know, abstracts everything into a value form, which collapses everything all qualities as effectively noise. Right? I mean, it's just about the bottom line fundamentally. And interest just means end to end prime. Right? Money becomes more money. But your project has a much more robust idea of interest, I would imagine, and that the social relationships and the qualities of what people are pursuing are themselves relevant to the decision making process. And we we do we're working on something where where the ultimate arbiter of value would not necessarily be this bottom line, but actually the sociality. And and allowing people to wage your more on the sociality, which the network can create, then the bottom line. Although still having some kind of interoperability as in our larger fantasies, we build a transition out of capitalism into some kind of post capitalist peer to peer network economy."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 7",
        "start": 225.0,
        "end": 225.0,
        "transcript": "Yeah. It was you you you spoke also about the trustlessness of Bitcoin, for example, and we see Interact as the exact opposite phenomenon where Yeah. Organization, it's dense trust. Like"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 240.0,
        "end": 240.0,
        "transcript": "Exactly."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 7",
        "start": 255.0,
        "end": 255.0,
        "transcript": "And our our why we we always talk about the why in the experience of being part of Interact itself. Like, the the why is a self evident why, which doesn't point to anything else. And I see that as a very valued creative why as well. It's a five zero one c three education organization, and we, of course, also have lots of programs and things to, like, bolster people, none of which we directly capture capture value for. Right? So this idea of being able to bring people together to kind of represent the value assignment themselves and and mediate that in explicit ways so that we could hypothetically afford to invest in health care, for example, where where the organization to believe that it was a meaningful investment, etcetera, etcetera. So I I fully respect and appreciate that, that idea of not just capturing value in the in the financial sense and giving people the ability to represent in a more direct in a more direct way, what they would like to see invested in, essentially."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 270.0,
        "end": 270.0,
        "transcript": "I can say more, but I won't."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 5",
        "start": 285.0,
        "end": 285.0,
        "transcript": "Nick, you'll wanna unmute."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 300.0,
        "end": 300.0,
        "transcript": "Sorry about that. Let's bring in some others. James, can you articulate your your question from way back?"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 8",
        "start": 315.0,
        "end": 315.0,
        "transcript": "Sure. I was just curious because of what Zargam shared in the chat. I he said that the language for encoding is more important than the specific encoding of ownership. And I just wondered, you know, which are languages for encoding because there are so many languages. We're talking about all these complex issues. Didn't know if there was someone who could articulate that for me, but we can discuss."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 330.0,
        "end": 330.0,
        "transcript": "Well, that that's not my my belly rack. And and Jorge, who was here last time, who's the CTO, that that's that's his work. But what I understand is for the moment, it's distributed JavaScript that's being used. But I don't know if I can really"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 345.0,
        "end": 345.0,
        "transcript": "I I'm not"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 360.0,
        "end": 360.0,
        "transcript": "qualified to explain why."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 9",
        "start": 375.0,
        "end": 375.0,
        "transcript": "My comment wasn't on programming languages."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 390.0,
        "end": 390.0,
        "transcript": "Oh, sure."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 9",
        "start": 405.0,
        "end": 405.0,
        "transcript": "It was yeah. Actually, so the comment I was making was differentiating particular encoding of of the right or the concept of ownership as a as a decomposed constellation of rights and the language you use to describe it. So, like, if you use Pistor, which we've been talking about, like, you could describe the notion of ownership using that ontology, and then you could say this is what ownership is. But when you write it in code, then you are actually not just describing it, you're declaring it, or you're making that what that means. And so what I was asking actually or kind of framing in the context of Exa was the difference between saying, this is what ownership means and saying, this is the language for describing what ownership is, so we could change it if it's not working out for us."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 3",
        "start": 420.0,
        "end": 420.0,
        "transcript": "No. That that is a great point. I completely agree. This was kind of I shortly referred to it, but way too shortly to actually probably come out of the phrasing so that we think of the expressions that we currently have as projections. And by that concept, we mean that there is probably no this is the right way of coding. And there are certain reasons why such an approach, I think, is ultimately stronger. And, of course, it's not beside of actually going coding structures. It's more pointing towards, let's say, the practicality if I were to design an organization. And that organization would not be just in code, but it would have real world contacts, etcetera. There is a lot even in rights, even when I break down ownership that is is going to be fussy in the structures. And for those situations, I actually need a higher up, let's say, the kind of pursuit, the definition of what does this particular right want to do. Like, what is the principle what it wants to put this in this area, which is then going to be broken down, not just what happens in the organization, but when it kind of, let's say, ends up working with some law of a particular nation, what does the organization want to guide its principles again? And you need a higher expression to that. If you would try to kinda code everything down there, down to the last nail, you would probably fail that project anyway. So in this sense, this area is important, and having actually, expression forms for different levels is important, design wise and even communication wise, for people to understand the organization."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 8",
        "start": 435.0,
        "end": 435.0,
        "transcript": "Cool. Alright. Thanks."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 450.0,
        "end": 450.0,
        "transcript": "Seth, do you wanna"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 5",
        "start": 465.0,
        "end": 465.0,
        "transcript": "Yeah. So, the longer I've been involved, both on the on the kind of practice side, and and especially on the theory side, the the of studying communities and and and how how to build them to do a specific thing, the more I'm personally kinda coming out on a sort of that it's a fundamentally empirical process that, it's really tied in to what's happening on the ground, and it seems to favor some kind of, a lot of attention to how the organization changes and in order to support really kind of high rate, high feedback sort of flexibility. And that empirical so I'm hearing you I'm hearing more of a theory driven approach, you know, Mark, Hayek, Kean's, but also blockchain. Blockchain, you know, of course, it's code. It can be made to do anything. But what stands out about it is it's sort of a theory first approach. You you try to get things, you know, 95% right. Maybe with other theory first approaches, you try to get them 80% right on the ground. And so because it's so static and preformulated upfront, not that it's not possible to do a sort of more adaptive, flexible, data driven design process, but just that it seems kinda like eating soup with a fork. It's just not the the the tool I would use use for that. Would you say that I'm a little too focused on the need for kinda empirical hands dirty on the ground approach? Is are are you kinda inclined to double down on on the power of theory to kinda get it mostly right all in your head before before or, am I missing something? One one thing I don't want in an answer is gonna be that our theory first approach is that change is great without being able to I didn't see too much of that in the presentation. So I'd I'd wanna want that fleshed out if that's the defense. Thank you."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 480.0,
        "end": 480.0,
        "transcript": "Yeah. I'll I'll just jump in there. Oh, sorry. Do you want to Sal? Go ahead."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 495.0,
        "end": 495.0,
        "transcript": "Yeah. No. No. Maybe I'll just say, yeah, I think that's a that's a fair fair comment. And in fact in fact, we we we think pretty much like that too even if it comes out maybe a little bit in a different way. One of the things is that we've kind of for have haven't had the as flexible tool to actually we have experimented with with things, but they they haven't been the like that they've been too too too too strict or too too, crude. So that has led us into this develop about into thinking about creating more flexible, tools. Jonathan talks about meta pragmatic, but it's just to say that it's a it's a way to that it can reflect and, yeah, that was kind of a direction I I was going with the answer."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 510.0,
        "end": 510.0,
        "transcript": "Just real quick. I mean, I I I totally hear the comment about the empirical kind of on the ground, adequation or commensurate with people's actual needs rather than some kind of theoretical approach, and I fundamentally agree with it. One of the one of the guiding, ideas that we've been working with is Randy Martin's notion of the social derivative, which comes out of, you know, kind of everything from postmodern dance to surf and skate cultures and the kinds of things that people did to deal with economic volatility on a completely different level, right, and how culture's built around this sort of riding the various waves of volatility, which are really important. I know you weren't quite talking about that. Maybe you were gesturing more towards activism, which is something that I certainly keep firmly in mind. But the only answer that I can give in terms of, like, why all this theory stuff is because the absorption of community and communitarian desire by social media and and current economy is so profound that it also needs to be addressed at that level. Right? I mean, if you think about what the Internet is, my understanding anyway, it's people seeking horizontal relationships, people seeking to create various community. But this democratizing and horizontalizing force, which is it's happening in drawing on the desires of basically the globe has become a fundamental engine of asymmetrical value accumulation, right, where horizontally we have Internet, but financially we have a pyramid, and Jeff Bezos has a $188,000,000,000. You know what I mean? So that's that's and Zuckerberg and all the rest. So that's a problem. And so the and that has to be dealt with sort of not maybe on the ground. Right? Has to be dealt on with some relationship between the ground and the process of abstraction."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 525.0,
        "end": 525.0,
        "transcript": "So occupy the abstractions. That's what you're saying."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 540.0,
        "end": 540.0,
        "transcript": "Yeah. Yeah. And and I"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 555.0,
        "end": 555.0,
        "transcript": "mean, the work that's the work we're working"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 570.0,
        "end": 570.0,
        "transcript": "on right now is is on the decolonization of money."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 3",
        "start": 585.0,
        "end": 585.0,
        "transcript": "But but one key aspect is I can I think hidden in the word culture because I do think we are dealing with culture or cultures? We're dealing with maybe a culture of organizations that is growing to be more creative. We're certainly dealing with culture of economy that is integrating the possibility to be creative with economy, which has been cut out of our culture for for a significant amount, that any culture is not only theoretical. It's not only empirical. It is rather many, many different forms of expression and forms of experimentation together, and that is how culture develops. And then do you think then for this reason, I I would agree that currently this is theoretical. I'm hoping, for example, the projects in Berlin of building these sort of spaces for three weeks, etcetera, at least start to compensate and build the this experimental, which I think we do need. But I do think we need the theoretical in combination and and potentially other forms in between even artists."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 5",
        "start": 600.0,
        "end": 600.0,
        "transcript": "Great. Great. Thanks very much. I'd like to make room for Divya before we lose her or both Divya's."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 10",
        "start": 615.0,
        "end": 615.0,
        "transcript": "Sorry. I've been very distracted by this weirdness in the chat that I don't know how to handle. Anyway, my question was around I'd recently been working on these, proof of personhood solutions on the blockchain, looking at, like, web of trust type solutions to, you know, determine whether someone's a person. And one of the comments that we got was, how do you deal with web of trust kind of base solutions replicating existing distinctions between communities where, like, certain communities for various reasons, often material differences don't overlap offline. How do you stop from replicating that in your online spaces? And so I was wondering if that's something that you had thought about in this space across some of the different examples that we've been discussing."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 4",
        "start": 630.0,
        "end": 630.0,
        "transcript": "I mean, I I guess that's addressed to to us, and if not, please somebody else take it. But but, absolutely. I mean, the my my understanding of, of of contemporary economy or which I think of as computational racial capitalism is that it actually, organizes through social difference and, that social difference becomes a strategy for discounting people's, time. And that and so you basically have racial abstraction and gender abstraction organizing, the return that people can get on their lifetime. And, so that's maybe too dense. But that is exactly what this project is designed to overcome. Although I feel like some of the thinking about how to do that is really in the, initial stages. Nonetheless, the fact that you can issue liquidity between peers and peers can recognize one another and share value and stake. If you think about that peer to peer relationship scaling across geopolitical differences and economic differences, what you would have is you'd have network adequation among the differences in the value of labor power globally, and that would be mediated by interpersonal relationships and decision making, this web of trust. That would be a very different way than the nation state model and with its militaries and genocides that we have right now, which is imposing these kinds of differentiations in value. Too dense, probably."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 10",
        "start": 645.0,
        "end": 645.0,
        "transcript": "No. That's interesting. Thanks."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 660.0,
        "end": 660.0,
        "transcript": "Do could you answer Tess's question? Tess, do you wanna just raise that?"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 11",
        "start": 675.0,
        "end": 675.0,
        "transcript": "Oh, yeah. I just have heard a few times people mention, like, the projects in Berlin are kind of, like, doing some experiments and we hope they pan out. But I had missed, like, which projects are the are the projects in Berlin? And I'm also in Berlin, so I'm I have a personal interest in this as well."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 690.0,
        "end": 690.0,
        "transcript": "Great. Great."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 3",
        "start": 705.0,
        "end": 705.0,
        "transcript": "No. No. You you caught us. Yes. That's one thing we should also provide detail for. There's just too many things for details. But but shortly. So we have been collaborating with, for example, a place called Supermarket, which is an arts organization, but also known for actually working in new economy for ten years or so or close to a new organization and with different partners. And and they recently kind of started to organize the next MoneyLap, which is an organization. But not just to that, but beyond that, we have started to talk that we want to form some kind of art of organization direction in Berlin. And and, like, nothing massive at the beginning, but this starting from this idea that, actually, this is an art form, but including not just the questions of irresponsibility, but also certain analytics of the form and start to find first people interested, forming a group around that, and then allowing enabling pro projects by, for example, from the spaces that many of these organizations have, which other than than rather than becoming, say, a gallery, they could become an economic space for, say, two weeks and and building projects like this. This is the this is still kind of early days, especially also with COVID. Like, otherwise, you would have seen this in action this year. Now won't know. But it's in plans for the next year, maybe late spring, depending on, you know, how things open in this closed down city. But you're completely welcome. Like, give your information and or we can probably get your information that if you're interested, you're completely welcome to be aware and join whenever something happens."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 11",
        "start": 720.0,
        "end": 720.0,
        "transcript": "Yeah. I'd love to be on, I guess, like, your mailing list or whatever."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 3",
        "start": 735.0,
        "end": 735.0,
        "transcript": "Cool. Yeah. That's the extent for now."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 12",
        "start": 750.0,
        "end": 750.0,
        "transcript": "Perfect."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 765.0,
        "end": 765.0,
        "transcript": "I just wanna we should wrap up, but but I I do wanna bring in a couple voices that we haven't heard. Let's see. Jesse, are you there? I don't see you if you wanted to voice or or Carter."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 12",
        "start": 780.0,
        "end": 780.0,
        "transcript": "Oh, yeah. I I'm I'm oh, I see my camera. I I actually posted this in chat. I just was replying to Seth and saying that when you look at the the actual blockchain projects that have been successful in terms of doing the centralized governance, Almost all of them have actually taken a they've taken a very incremental and empirical approach rather than a a theoretical one. What that looks like is they basically start with very little decentralization, and then gradually, as they better understand how the operates, they encode more and more of that operating structure into the technology. It's the actual protocol. And so I I'll share a link that that kind of, like, shares with this evolution. But I just think it's it's interesting to see that, like, those folks are taking a theoretical approach."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 795.0,
        "end": 795.0,
        "transcript": "And, Carter, do you wanna just follow-up, with what your your your response there, and then we'll wrap up?"
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 6",
        "start": 810.0,
        "end": 810.0,
        "transcript": "Carter doesn't have a mic."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 825.0,
        "end": 825.0,
        "transcript": "Maybe oh, that's right. Of course. Okay. Thank you. So let's those of us who do have mics, let's get ready to thank our speakers once again for round two. In three, two, one, unmute."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 6",
        "start": 840.0,
        "end": 840.0,
        "transcript": "Thanks, everyone."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 855.0,
        "end": 855.0,
        "transcript": "Alright."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 12",
        "start": 870.0,
        "end": 870.0,
        "transcript": "Thank you."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 885.0,
        "end": 885.0,
        "transcript": "Thanks."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 1",
        "start": 900.0,
        "end": 900.0,
        "transcript": "Alright. Thank you so much. Be well. And and and for those of you who who are in The US, have a happy Thanksgiving. We're going to we have a, I think, two more, seminar meetings, before we take a couple weeks off for the, for the end of the of the year and we'll start up again in January. Thanks very much. See you soon."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 2",
        "start": 915.0,
        "end": 915.0,
        "transcript": "Alright. Thanks, Nathan."
      },
      {
        "speaker": "Speaker 5",
        "start": 930.0,
        "end": 930.0,
        "transcript": "Nathan, stay on for a sec. Looks like we have, some kind of abuse thing going on."
      }
    ],
    "summary": null
  }
}