Today is December 11, and I'm very excited for the conversation we are having today. It's a little podcast crossover livestream action we got going on, where we have Alessandra and Carlo from the Democracy Innovators podcast and Jamila and myself from the Governance Futures podcast. We realized earlier in the year that we were both in same kind of meta dove and governance related circles. And, yeah, I know when, Alessandro, when you reached out, and I checked out your podcast, I got super excited. I'm like, oh my gosh. These are very much some of the conversations I hope we were having. And, yeah, it just seemed like a no brainer for us to at least be friendly, and I'm glad that, you know, it's gotten to this point. So, yeah, really excited to get to kind of present, both of our podcasts and what we're working on, what we're all about, and then just have kind of a discussion reflecting on this year, why we started, what how what we feel we accomplished or where we got to this year, and kinda look forward to what are the kind of conversations and dialogues we hope to be part of and to seed or nurture next year. And then we'll show off a little tool because we also think conversation is great, and we love hanging out with, with other governors such as ourselves. But at the same time, we also feel like, you know, there needs to be some kind of action and tangible steps to do. So this is just a small attempt at doing that. But, yeah, I think we can just go ahead and and get right into it. And, yeah, Alessandro, if you don't mind kicking us off with kind of a brief, you know, introduction. How do you present yourself and what you work on? And, you know, feel free to take a minute or two and even just get right into, like, what was your journey getting to where you are as well. So, yeah, Alessandro, please.

Yeah. I can I can add in here? So first, I'm I'm also, like, really excited to have this collaboration because it feels like we're coming here together and with a kind of same or very, very similar, journey and and goals. This is really cool to have this together. And, like, my like, I'm originally actually from Germany, but I'm living in Sweden for, I think, four years now already. And my background is a little bit diverse, actually, in a in a sense. So I studied psychology, but I also studied physics. I studied statistics, and I did my PhD in, computation neuroscience, and then somehow switched to collective intelligence research in a way. This is mainly caused by I I felt like all my life, through all my life, that's, like, making democracy more efficient is a very important topic, which became just much more important. And at some point, I decided to kind of switch and focus more on this, which was actually also, like, fueled kind of by the fact that we had a project and some idea running already for a longer time that I'm now focusing on. And, yeah, as Alessandro said, like, we're, we we met, at some point. As as Alessandro said, he he contacted me. And then I think for, like, nine months or so, we were just in lose contact meeting from time to time. I think it was like to say it actually in kind of Alessandro Alessandro's words. We were, I think, at the the at the same place, at the same time, with a very similar in a similar status of our path in a way, both kind of starting looking like what what direction can we move on. And, yeah, after some time, we identified that this podcast thing would be a cool combination. While it's a little bit different, like, in your case, Eugene, and and, you know, it's it's, like, for us, more like, Alessandro is doing the interviews. I'm doing all the background work. Like, I'm doing the thumbnails, contacting the guests, making sure that they're happy with the titles and thumbnails and, stuff like this. And and, also, I'm I'm also listening to all the episodes, doing the chapters, descriptions, LinkedIn posts, and stuff like this. So I'm a little like, we have a little bit shared, tasks in a way, but this works quite well. So so far, we're very happy with this. Yeah. I think that's for now from my side.

Yeah. Thank you so much. And I will just quickly comment as, you know, as fellow podcasters, so many folks don't realize all the invisible work around it. And granted, it's gotten easier year by year, especially with a lot of the new tooling. But, if you haven't tried it, yeah, feel free to, and you'll be so pleasantly or not so pleasantly surprised by all that additional labor around it as well. So yeah. Yeah. Very much makes sense to have the kind of split that y'all were mentioning. But to kinda keep the intros going, Jamila, do you mind hopping in and, yeah, telling what you're up to and kinda how you got to where you're at

not I don't know. How long have you been in this space? But, same in my institution for yeah. Yeah. Ten ish years. Yeah. I think I, at some point, I looked it up, and it was an intern, at a previous employer when I was still in the corporate world. It was like, hey. Have you read about this Bitcoin thing? Like, I think this you'll find this interesting. And, yeah, it still took me a few months to actually get there, but it was, yeah, roughly end of, 2015 when that initial, putting it on my radar happened. One quick logistical thing before I keep answering the question. If you are hanging out with us on and watching on YouTube live, I am keeping an eye on the chat on YouTube. So if you do have questions, things you want us to ask each other, you wanna directly ask all of us or one of us, please feel free to do so in the YouTube comments, or tweet at us. And, yeah, we will do it on the YouTube comments. That'll be easier to manage. I can only look at so many things at the same time. But, yeah, so to answer the question so, yeah, I mean, it took me a while somewhere in, like, the six, seven years into my experience out of undergrad, to realize that governance was the thing that I got really excited about. And I started kinda realizing that as I started learning about the DAO in 2016 and around the same time, I I don't know how many folks remember, but there was also just questions of and regulatory changes in the states on, the ability to do equity crowdfunding and things like that. So it was just a time when kind of communal interaction was happening in a different way. And so I was able to coordinate around things like venture capital or, you know, communal decision making in some kind of, financial linked way that was novel. And so, you know, I I started working on a project called EduDAO, which I know there's an EduDAO out there now, and apologies for confusion, but new spaces, same names. But our version of EduDAO was really trying to work on, you know, how can we create a DAO, crowdfunding platform specifically supporting schools and nonprofits where the governance of what is allowed on the platform and not is managed within the neighborhoods. Because I was working in the corporate world, I was on the board of a few nonprofits around New York City, and it was just very common that, you know, like, the board of a group that is just meant to, you know, support a local community in The Bronx or deep in Queens or deep in Brooklyn, that actually most of their board members are, like, corporate fancy people from Manhattan who have no personal association with the, with that neighborhood, who might not actually understand the direct needs. And so, like, this question of how do you give certain power to the people who should who have the most context? And that looking into that design space really got me more excited about it. I decided to go back to grad school after that, do some public policy learning, to kinda round out my own knowledge. And then since kinda COVID times, or what was it? 2021, I made the full time jump into Web three. So, yeah, to your point, Jamila, depending on how one looks at it, I know I I frequently criticize a a lot of folks who have only had Web three jobs, and I tell them, you know what would be great? Having a job outside of Web three where you actually deal with humans who don't just have crazy Web three expectations. But, I mean, the the essence of what really got me excited to, like, do governance in Web three, has really been rooted around being this test bed for democratic innovation. And this idea that, you know, you may have whatever feelings you have about, like, most of crypto and the fact that we're doing, like, finance things on new infrastructure and yada yada. Right? There's the separate camp of, like, cypherpunk ideals. There's obviously a lot of other groups. And, actually, through Medigob, we've had this, like, a political party mapping of Ethereum in a couple years ago, so you could I'll try to find that and link to that. But, yeah, it's it still does present this opportunity on the governance side where we can kind of hopefully speed run experimentation to see how we could do better at coordinating. And coordination is just, like, one of the fundamental elements of us as a species because what, for me, differentiates humans from a lot of other animals is our ability to coordinate. And, right, like, opposable thumbs and language and all those things are, like, very useful tools to, like, amplify that coordination, but it's really the coordination that just seems, at least from my perspective, like, so essentially human. And with the way tech has been changing, especially in recent decades, like, look at all the case studies in social media and how that's gone in different capacities, that kinda worries me. So it feels like experimenting more on the governance side can be this counterweight to what we're seeing as, like, broad centralization of authority and power in a lot of different contexts. And I hope that, you know, my dream of doing all the various things I'm doing is that, you know, this is a drop in the bucket of creating that counterweight of, like, truly empowering communities to have their desires, their demands reflected in the actual power structures that we find ourselves in. And, you know, in crypto, you could totally criticize us of, like, we're just doing that for fake Internet money treasuries, and, sure, that's a valid criticism. But, nonetheless, given it's this weird test bed, right, there's also technically less risk to society at large if we fail, which is much more comfortable than, like, if we mess up a presidential election. That's kind of a big deal. Right? Like, that we we should be aware of the consequences. And, actually, last night, I saw a tweet from Andy Hall where he talked about how prediction markets might influence presidential elections and, like, actually wrote it out as if it's, Mark Cuban versus JD Vance in the twenty twenty eight America election, and, like, they're super close. And he he wrote out this thought experiment around it, but it it just talks to me about this the other side of tech and, like, what are the dangers of what is getting built and how it can be misused, which to me starts wanting to ask the next question of, you know, what have been some of both either the exciting takeaways from the conversations that y'all have had, Alessandro and Carlo? You know, what are the questions that either, or findings that get you most motivated, most hopeful, most, you know, positively looking towards the future? Or what are the things that, you know, came up this year that you're like, oh, I have no clue how we're gonna solve that or that really scares me or you know? What have been some of these these takeaways from the year?

Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. So I I can I can really agree to to what you've said, like, with this hype thing? I have the same thing, like, as as you mentioned also with AI right now. I mean, in the podcast, there are a lot of people, like, talking about tools or perspectives on on AI, like, in in a huge spectrum, you know, from from, like, we should use it as an, like, supporting assistant up to, it should take over democracy and all the decision making. And, there's certainly this feeling of hype of of the hype of this. And I I think there is, like, it's it's, you know, we we can go with it, and we can observe what people develop and do. And there's certainly a lot of value also created in this, but I think a lot of things will also not sustain, and it's certainly not like the solution for everything. Actually, I think that so from my perspective, to be honest, like, when blockchain and especially Ethereum started, I became very interested in blockchain, because I I also, like, felt like this is, this is a new approach for, yeah, coordinating humans, actually. And and in general, I like everything that is decentralized, but I was actually a little bit frustrated, to be honest, in this phase of, you know, ICOs and DeFi and all this stuff is actually, to to a certain part, still ongoing. And and it's kind of it it was it was not serving that vision in a way. But I think I think below this threshold or below this hype thing that is or financial thing that is still ongoing, there's I feel a new wave coming up. And for me, it starts to become more and more interesting. This is also why my current research project is now in, Web three governance. And and I would I would like to go more into this because I feel like in the shadow of the AI hype hype, maybe blockchain has a new chance to to develop some cool new things. But, otherwise, I think, one of the most important learnings from the podcast, is that there are really the people who are able to, to think fully beyond, hypes. Like like, there were this Robert, Bjornsson, for example, from Iceland or Geert Lovik, I think he's from Netherlands. You know, they they are, like, in this civic tech field, even before it was called civic tech, like, twenty, thirty years ago. They start like, when the Internet came up, they started to think about, can we do governance, democratic decision making, and so on online? And, I I I think I think it's very interesting to hear also to these voices because they are, like, a little bit more immune to these hype cycles and focus more on the long term, long term direction of everything. And this is this is actually kind of a learning to see that, you know, there is this long term perspective, and it heals and helps to come over this very hypey thing in a way. And maybe maybe one more thing to add is like, like, you know, when when you observe the AI, like, how AI has developed over the years, actually, like, when TTPT came up, it was for me, it was like the end of the hype in a way. You know? It was the convergence point of, several, I don't know, tens of years. I mean I mean I mean, the the perceptual model, which is still the basic element kind of of deep neural networks was developed in the nineteen fifties. And from then on, people developed, like, more and more algorithms. Computation came up and it was more powerful and more powerful, and deep deep, neural networks came up and so on and so on. And for me, like, JGPT is kind of the end of this AI cycle in a way. And now we ops we we kind of experiment the effect on society of AI, but from a technological perspective, for me, it's actually the end. And this is also quite exciting, of course. But but but I for me, this is also kind of an important kind of perspective I got from the podcast in a way. Yeah.

Yeah. Maybe, Eugene, you have And quickly, does one cycle ending inherently imply another cycle beginning? Or or do or do you see a bigger end with that the way you're framing that chat GPT is kind of the end of the cycle?

No. No. No. Of course, there's a new cycle beginning. I I I think so. But I think it will take longer than many people, like, communicators right now. So I I think in the in this current hype, people tend to, like, communicate that there is a lot of things coming up in the next one, two, three years. But I I feel like when you listen more closely to the experts in a way, you know, to those implementing the networks, they are more saying, like, yeah, they are they will certainly become there's there's more to come, but, it will take more time. And there is a lot more we have to understand. And especially, like, from my background of, like, coming from theoretical computational neuroscience, you know, all these AI systems today, they are, like, highly inspired, of course, of how the brain works, but only inspired. Like, they are very, very far away from how the brain actually works. And there are a lot of things that we really need to understand first, also in in way of how the brain works before we can do the new iteration. At least that that that is what I think. I mean, it might be that, you know, tomorrow something is released and and then okay. Then I'm surprised and I was wrong. That's fine. But but I think the most probable way is that it will take some time until this, like, the new big thing is coming in the way. Yeah.

For sure. I guess in that sense and also to come back to Alex's question on, the the principles. I mean, one one thing aside from the principles, it feels like from that hype mentality, you know, we're a couple of years from mainstream adoption has been, like, the mantra since 2015, '16 in different ways. And, sure, we can see a lot more evidence of it with stablecoin adoption or banks getting involved or yada yada. But at the same time, when you take that lens of how old or new of a technology is this and what could or should we realistically be expecting given its relative novelty? And even though the Bitcoin white paper was, what, Halloween of two thousand eight, right, digital money or different versions of that were already being experimented with for two plus decades. And, like, the history of distributed computing and and decentralized computing and everything. And, anyway, so to to directly answer, Alex, the the question about the principles, I think that's a really hard question to answer, honestly, in the sense that I think it is very easy to put on rose colored glasses looking back and say that Ethereum exists because cypherpunk stuff or the trustless jump to show you the results of a different one so that you could see what happens when people actually fill it out and why this can be useful for folks. So I'm not gonna go into, like, the full unpacking of Agora, though their team is amazing. And this is Agora Citizen, agoracitizen.app. There's also a governance tool, Agora for governance infrastructure in Web three, different tools. So we're specifically talking about the citizen app here. But you can have a summary where you can effectively, you know, get this broad overview, but you could get this kinda common ground or divisive views. Right? So what did the people who respond most agree with or disagree with? And then you can actually I'm sorry. My zooming is being weird. But you could click in and see of the total participants, how many agreed, how many disagreed, how many were unsure. So just to give you a sense of, like, what these color mean, blue means who agreed. The middle is unsure, the the darker gray. This yellowy orangey color is disagree, and this lighter gray is people who did not answer that, possibly because they did not see it. Right? If not, all the seed statements are there right away. So where this has felt very useful to me is if you're like, hey. I know if I just ask in a survey form or just ask people point blank, do you agree with a or b? It's like a low fidelity question. Right? Like, they you you have to, like, really talk to them and get information out of them. So where I find this useful is once you have a bunch of opinions so, like, the way I use this in a strategy exercise, I did one on ones with everyone involved. I got their initial set of opinions. And then to put them in conversation and each other, I created about 50 seed statements, had all of them fill it out, and then we had a discussion about it. Right? And the feedback I got was, like, oh, well, I had a vague sense of what everyone around me thought, but I didn't actually know. I thought this was a full agreement from everyone. I didn't know there were some dissenters, or I had no clue that it's only one dissenter or, actually, you know, like, the community is almost split on it. So that's where I think this kind of tool can really be powerful, and I wanted to showcase it, especially for the Web three crowd because that tool is a fork of Polis, pol.is, which is an amazing tool and I feel like the OG in that direction. And what they forked it for is that you could actually link it to, z k based identity solutions so that you can have privacy preserving verifiability of that real people are the ones filling this information out. Right? Because us doing this kind of sentiment gathering on the Internet about a thing that we're just, you know, wanna get a vibe on, is one thing. If you're using this in a political process with your citizens, right, you probably wanna make sure there aren't a ton of, nation state bots, influencing that kind of discussion. So, yeah, coming back to the, like, what are we excited for in in next year, I wanna get people experimenting with more tools and understanding where they work and where they don't work and how we can best support each other in that kind of learning. So if that kind of stuff is of interest to you, please do reach out. Please fill out this serve this, Agora conversation. I'm gonna fill it out too, and, I I know all the four of us will. So I think it's going to be exciting just to see, like, what's the vibe. Right? And this isn't the only way to use the tool. So if folks find and I would love to hear kinda as we start wrapping up, you know, like, where do you, like, where do you hope, or do you wanna do say given we're we're technically have a minute left in the scheduled time. But to to kinda wrap, like, where do you hope people will experiment with tools? If you could get communities to run any kind of experiment, what would be one that you would wanna see next year, and maybe we could end on that? I don't know who who wants to take that up before I popcorn it to someone. I just wanted to add,

I I I keep it short. So so for me, also, the conversational part is is, is the important one. For me, it's also okay, like, if tools provide, like, video calls and whatever. But, like, the the core deliberative conversational part debating with each other is really, like, what I would see more kind of beyond AI and beyond, just voting in a way. Like, the tool I'm working with, like, the advocacy protocol there, I'm I'm implementing also kind of a tool for it where I'm testing the Web three governance thing with, is also more on the side of conversations instead of, like, just voting and AI. And I would like to see more in this direction and also try out more in this direction, to be honest.

Yeah. No. This has been wonderful. I know I super enjoyed the conversation. I hope the folks tuning in enjoyed as well. So I just wanna take a moment to thank, Alessandro, Carlo, and Jamila for joining us for this. This is super fun. Hopefully, more to come from many different directions going into next year, both in terms of conversation and experimentation. So, yeah, if anything we said was exciting to you, please make sure to follow our podcast to hear more about our conversations, and also to reach out to us. Yeah. We're, again, we're very happy to work with others and, kind of, put our money where our time is being spent and not just building tools or processes or researching them, but actually building that muscle and building that culture and practice around it too. So, yeah, thank you again to everyone, and super excited to, to have more in the future. Have a good rest of the day, Yolanda.

Maybe maybe I can can add a small, like, controversial point here. Because I I actually believe, like, that there is it's not necessary that two like, like, that everyone is participating in a way or that huge amounts of people that participate. Like, there's this one interview, I think it's two, three episodes ago with Tiago Paixoto, and he, like, he was, like like, saying clearly that all this, like, political tooling and and algorithms and stuff like this is all kind of I mean, it's it's a little bit I'm I'm I'm over pronouncing this a little bit, but it's a it's kind of useless if it's not backed by a social movement that is kind of fighting for the results that are coming out or for the changes that are needed. And there is actually research, like, there's this, from political theory, there's this 4% rule. I don't know if you're familiar with this. Like, that in in history, there's always, like, 44% of of a society necessary to kind of organize for or against something to make change happen. And I I think I think this is kind for me, this is kind of, you know, which is the threshold, which which is required actually to to bring 4% of people of a of a society behind one goal, and then there's change that can happen. I mean, this this itself is already hard. You know? 4% of of a whole society that is kind of engaging for the same thing and aligned with the same idea is already a very, very hard thing. But it's much less hard than having 100, bring behind the same goal because most people, they are not willing to participate. But I think the good thing is they are also okay, with, like, whatever is coming out. And if they are not okay, they still have the opportunity to participate. Yeah. So so actually actually, to be honest, like, maybe maybe putting this in and also framing it into this direction, like, like, the interview with Tiago was also quite interesting from this perspective and, like, you know, understanding it from this side.

Yeah. I mean and and hearing what the three of you were saying right now made me think of a few points, which both relate to kinda takeaways from the pot and just generally. But a one element of it is relating to the culture is, like, governance as a skill and not just a process and thing we partake in. Like, governance is a muscle you also need to train. Right? I feel like that might sound silly, but I can't imagine rather I know for a fact I am not the only one who, after adding social isolation to their life during COVID, and then you start interacting with people, and you're like, I forgot how to be around people. I'm feeling like I'm super weird right now. And, like, you need to relearn how to be with humans. Right? The social side is inherently part of us, but the less we do it, the less that muscle is trained. Right? So I feel like a lot of the reality of being, like, a governance, designer of a governance system to a governance practitioner, especially in Web three, you assume that people are fit enough to go run a marathon with you right away. And then you would realize and talk to them, and you're like, oh, you haven't been running at all nor do you want to. Right? And then all of a sudden, you're like, wait. So what am I designing for? Right? Like, I'm designing for the marathon runners, and I have a bunch of people who don't wanna go for a run. Right? And so, like, there there is that inherent dissonance, and I, I've been trying to scramble and remember the book that I I, listened to this summer that gave the three to 4% stat that you're quoting, Carlo. But, yeah, like, seeing that from a network analysis perspective of social change is so fascinating. Right? And we don't need everyone in the world to be on board with the movement to be meaningful. We just need to find that right three to 4% to start with. And so, you know, getting to the what do I hope we can work on, whether through the podcast, whether through other you know, through meta gov work or through work at Optint or kinda anything else that I'll be up to next year, for me, is trying to get at, you know, how can we build a community of practitioners, from the researchers and the people building the systems? How do we nurture those connections better so that research isn't happening in isolation, so that we're doing research on the tools and experiments that we're running and creating iterative feedback loops so that we can all move a little faster, without having to break things and learn as as well as possible, just about, minimizing the the kind of time of doing it alone as opposed to in a group. You know, I also really wanna highlight deliberative processes, right, which very much is gonna be a segue to this tool that I wanna show because I think it's very easy to think of, like, oh, well, I'm not running a government, so why do I need these bigger tool deliberative tools or whatever? Like, I just use this tool for a 10 person strategy session over the course of a week, and everyone gave me feedback of, like, this is super insightful. Right? So, like, you there there's just different ways to think about how do we get the information that we need to make the best possible decisions, whether you as an individual, whether you and the role that you play in your communities, or you as someone who is nurturing a broader community or movement. And so, like, seeding that culture alongside building these communities of practice, is kind of very much at the at the core of it. And for me thinking and taking more of a product lens or experimentation lens towards governance feels like a thing that we are going to go slower if we don't take that lens in the short run. Of course, we can't just assume tech will solve our problems. I'm not, promoting pure blind kind of techno optimism, but I do kind of, you know, if taking, like, the EAC, DAC kind of view of, you know, like, I'm not blindly techno optimistic, but I do think tech is an important part of solutions. And so the better we, define the problems more clearly, the better we bring the right people together to have their voice heard as part of that process. And we iterate, hopefully, the better we will get to, you know, better tools, better processes while nurturing that culture and movement that will pick up those tools and processes. Because you also, right, I feel like BLM, back in 2012, Occupy Wall Street, like, when or or sorry. I was thinking about the Occupy movement, in, like, twenty fourteen ish. My apologies. I I butchered timelines. But, like, when Occupy happened, like, there was so much energy and hope around that. And And then I was like, oh, the tools aren't there for you to actually do this at scale. And, like, a lot of groups just kinda, like, fell on their face, and it was disappointing to a lot of people. And so, like, that's a bummer. And so I feel like as people who are building the tools or who are closer to being in that tiny niche, one way I think of it is, like, how can we get ready for when that movement happens. Right? Regardless of whether or not we're also part of building that movement, we should be connecting to, like, those forces of the people building in in their tiny little niches and the large scale, like, social movements that we wanna get to. Yeah. So I think it it it's it's a tune in and before we

Coordination. So I would actually go back to Eugene, and say coordination is is the word.

So And now I need to know. Participation.

I don't know if this is cheating because this technically incorporates the other two, but just to not repeat, I'm gonna go with community.

do what do we have, for the last ten minutes? Yeah. So I'm gonna I'm gonna pull up our tool. I'll drop a link, and I'll also have a QR code in case you wanna follow along in real time. I do also just wanna call out because I see one person left a question, that I will crudely reduce to kind of the intersection of religion, spirituality, God, and how that does or does not interface with governance systems or, like, the reality of change and accountability. That feels like a super deep question that I actually have follow-up questions on to make sure I I would be answering the right question. So not trying to deflect, but please, and apologies if I'm butchering the intended spell pronunciation here, but Sosid five eight one. If you do wanna have more of that conversation, please feel free to reach out on Twitter. I'm happy to kind of focus on something like that as a stand alone because I don't wanna do, like, a thirty second, disrespectful answer towards a a huge question like that. But, yeah, let me go ahead and screen share. Let's see if this works. You should be seeing a QR code shortly. So if you, for whatever reason, don't have access to the link, that I dropped, which you should see regardless of if you're with us on Riverside or YouTube, you can access this via this QR code. This will be open technically and definitely the way the tool is designed, but I will personally keep track of this through Sunday. I think it's December 14. And then we'll try to do a tweet on our side with GovFutures podcast of some screenshots of, like, the results by early next week. So if you have time in the next three to four days, assuming you're watching when this came out, please jump in and check this out. And, yeah, come follow us on Twitter and hang out with us beyond. Alright. So the way this tool works in general is you have a bunch of seed statements. So my preferred way of using this tool is to scroll and generally get a sense of all of the statements. And it is important to note, at least the way I think about this, like, you need to agree or disagree with the statement in its entirety. Like, when you are designing this, as the designer of filling this out, you should be very particular with your words, and you should intentionally make it you could make it opinionated. Right? There's different ways of doing it, and I'm unaware of a a best quote a quote, unquote way. But I am a fan of being very pointed so that if there's disagreement, you can unpack, like, specific words as well. So I like taking a look through this, and you'll see the seat opinions were the ones that were put in initially. Right? Carlo added here. You could actually add any of your own opinions. So not everyone will be able to answer it because if you only add an opinion on Sunday, you know, it might take a minute for people to find it. But, you know, once you've gone through, you have a sense, you're gonna go through and agree, either disagree with this statement, you're gonna be unsure, or you're gonna agree. So, I mean, the UI is, is very simple. Right? You either disagree with the statement and you see the other results, you know, and, yeah, kinda answer however you see fit. So I don't think it would be exciting to just watch me do that, but let me jump to show you the results of a different one so that you could see what happens when people actually fill it out and why this can be useful for folks. So I'm not gonna go into, like, the full unpacking of Agora, though their team is amazing. And this is Agora Citizen, agoracitizen.app. There's also a governance tool, Agora for governance infrastructure in Web three, different tools. So we're specifically talking about the citizen app here. But you can have a summary where you can effectively, you know, get this broad overview, but you could get this kinda common ground or divisive views. Right? So what did the people who respond most agree with or disagree with? And then you can actually I'm sorry. My zooming is being weird. But you could click in and see of the total participants, how many agreed, how many disagreed, how many were unsure. So just to give you a sense of, like, what these color mean, blue means who agreed. The middle is unsure, the the darker gray. This yellowy orangey color is disagree, and this lighter gray is people who did not answer that, possibly because they did not see it. Right? If not, all the seed statements are there right away. So where this has felt very useful to me is if you're like, hey. I know if I just ask in a survey form or just ask people point blank, do you agree with a or b? It's like a low fidelity question. Right? Like, they you you have to, like, really talk to them and get information out of them. So where I find this useful is once you have a bunch of opinions so, like, the way I use this in a strategy exercise, I did one on ones with everyone involved. I got their initial set of opinions. And then to put them in conversation and each other, I created about 50 seed statements, had all of them fill it out, and then we had a discussion about it. Right? And the feedback I got was like, oh, well, I had a vague sense of what everyone around me thought, but I didn't actually know. I thought this was a full agreement from everyone. I didn't know there were some dissenters, or I had no clue that it's only one dissenter or, actually, you know, like, the community is almost split on it. So that's where I think this kind of tool can really be powerful, and I wanted to showcase it, especially for the Web three crowd because that tool is a fork of Polis, pol.is, which is an amazing tool and I feel like the OG in that direction. And what they forked it for is that you could actually link it to, z k based identity solutions so that you can have privacy preserving verifiability of that real people are the ones filling this information out. Right? Because us doing this kind of sentiment gathering on the Internet about a thing that we're just, you know, wanna get a vibe on, is one thing. If you're using this in a political process with your citizens, right, you probably wanna make sure there aren't a ton of, nation state bots, influencing that kind of discussion. So, yeah, coming back to the, like, what are we excited for in in next year, I wanna get people experimenting with more tools and understanding where they work and where they don't work and how we can best support each other in that kind of learning. So if that kind of stuff is of interest to you, please do reach out. Please fill out this serve this, Agora conversation. I'm gonna fill it out too, and I I know all the four of us will. So I think it's going to be exciting just to see, like, what's the vibe. Right? And this isn't the only way to use the tool. So if folks find and I would love to hear kinda as we start wrapping up, you know, like, where do you, like, where do you hope, or do you wanna do say given we're we're technically have a minute left in the scheduled time. But to to kinda wrap, like, where do you hope people will experiment with tools? If you could get communities to run any kind of experiment, what would be one that you would wanna see next year, and maybe we could end on that? I don't know who who wants to take that up before I popcorn it to someone. I just wanted to add,

I I I keep it short. So so for me, also, the conversational part is is, is the important one. For me, it's also okay, like, if tools provide, like, video calls and whatever. But, like, the the core deliberative conversational part debating with each other is really, like, what I would see more kind of beyond AI and beyond, just voting in a way. Like, the tool I'm working with, like, the advocacy protocol there, I'm I'm implementing also kind of a tool for it where I'm testing the Web three governance thing with, is also more on the side of conversations instead of, like, just voting and AI. And I would like to see more in this direction and also try out more in this direction, to be honest.

Yeah. No. This has been wonderful. I know I super enjoyed the conversation. I hope the folks tuning in enjoyed as well. So I just wanna take a moment to thank, Alessandro, Carlo, and Jamila for joining us for this. This is super fun. Hopefully, more to come from many different directions going into next year, both in terms of conversation and experimentation. So, yeah, if anything we said was exciting to you, please make sure to follow our podcast to hear more about our conversations, and also to reach out to us. Yeah. We're, again, we're very happy to work with others and, kind of, put our money where our time is being spent and not just building tools or processes or researching them, but actually building that muscle and building that culture and practice around it too. So, yeah, thank you again to everyone, and super excited to, to have more in the future. Have a good rest of the day. Guys.