Yeah. Thank you very much. I'm I'm really very happy to have this opportunity to talk here, and I will cover actually two topics. So one is the advocacy decision making protocol that I introduce, and the other one is my very first ideas of a Web3 democracy. And regarding the latter part, it's actually the very first time I present my first thoughts about this publicly. I thought that the Metagov community is the perfect place to do this, and to collect very first feedback on this. But also, on the democracy process itself, of course. Yeah. And I would just start through. So, I'm starting with a quote from Martin Luther King, saying that those who love peace must learn to organise as effectively as those who love war. And what I think is behind this quote is that we can observe that humans are very good to collectively organise against an enemy. But it's very hard for humans to organize for a self defined goal and work towards this goal. And I think this is a little bit the direction we have to go or where we have to find solutions to to improve this. But before I start, I would introduce our team. So, me, who I would define myself at the moment mostly as research and full stack developer, perhaps. I initiated the Abokracy project, I think, in 2011 or so, so a little bit more than ten years ago. And I studied, psychology. I studied physics. I studied statistics. I did my PhD in computation neuroscience and also one on one and a half year postdoc phase afterwards. I was also freelancer for or I still am a little bit for fifteen years or so. So I have also a lot of coding practice, and I see myself a little bit in on the intersection between, like, understanding human interact interaction and using it for some collective intelligence things and combining this with existing technology, especially, of course, the today's technologies like blockchain and AI. And, Patrick is is a team member that was, with me from the very first beginning. So he was the first one I wrote and told him about my ideas, and he directly joined. And he was, very important in developing the concept to concept together with me and in programming the first prototype. He's coming from computational engineering background. And Janek, I met Janek during my PhD student time. And he has a physics background, and he when he joined, he helped us a lot in finishing the first prototype, doing the first test, and he was also very important for, writing the white paper together with us. So yeah. And, all of us are, until now, working together. Patrick and Janik are working full time in full time jobs. So they are, like, more or less advisers for me at the moment. And I decided some months ago to fully focus on hypocrisy and, like, try to find a way to look into hypocrisy or in collective intelligence in general. Yes. So the question that was driving us all the time is a large one. It's, how can we build a democracy that scales globally that is at the same time efficient in the sense that we have somehow good decisions that we can get in a reasonable time, like, some years, perhaps, maximum, and is potentially recognized as legitimate from from users that use it. So that that that was the question that that is, like, around in our minds for for many, many years. And we think that democracy is one part of it, in in a sense that it's a collective intelligence approach that enables scalability and efficiency, but is focused on democratic decision making. So we're not talking about a whole democracy here. We're just talking about decision making. What I think is a very important foundation for democracies, but it's not a whole democracy, of course. But we have to start somewhere. And, yeah, let's let's jump directly into how Evocracy actually works. So first, everything in Evocracy is organized around topics, that can depends a little bit on use case, but in most use cases, end user every user can can create a topic and suggest a topic to discuss about. So this is kind of a problem statement, something to solve, something that a community has as a problem. And, these topics are then organized in several stages. So first, we have to select. So if every user can create a topic, not every so perhaps some users suggest something that is not important for the whole community that is using the software. So, first, the community needs to select which topics are actually relevant to discuss on. In the second step, when we have decided that this topic is relevant to discuss, every user can create a proposal of how to solve this. It can bring in ideas, opinions, whatever, independently and individually. And then we bring all of this together in the evolution stage. And finally, we have an evaluation stage where we vote on the final result and see if people are were satisfied with the result. Okay. But I will go through this in detail now. So first, how does the topic look like? So this is an abstract view on the topic. So we have an open question. Closed questions do not make so much sense in your work, actually. So it's always good to have an open question where we really can discuss on. Then we have a region, like or a group of people or a domain where, like yeah. Let let's say group of people or reference reference group perhaps, where this question belongs to. So group of people that that is asked to to bring in proposals and discuss on it. Then we have a description. We can add some references. We can add a lot of more of things just just to give you an idea of of what this could look like. And we could optionally vote on it. Depends on on the use case. And if it's a little bit more managed, perhaps in a in a company or so, perhaps some manager says, yes. We discuss about it and just decides it. But if it's a little bit more self organised, then we could implement a voting mechanism that would allow us to vote if this is relevant or not. And if we would implement some voting, it could look like this, for example. Here on the y axis, you see the number of votes. On the x axis, the time. And the interesting idea that we had is not to directly take the votes as they are, but to have an expiration time for the votes. Which means that if you vote, your vote is only valid for, like, three months. And afterwards, you can renew it, but it automatically expires, which gives us gives us kind of a measure of the momentum of interest in a specific topic. And, so this n is actually the momentum of interest or reflects the momentum of interest. And if the momentum reaches an upper threshold, we consider the topic as accepted, and the users can start to propose solutions. If, if the the momentum stops and people are not voting anymore for it because perhaps a small group of people found it quite interesting, but then interest is vanishing and it it can it can decline again. And when it is under a specific lower threshold for some time, it's automatically rejected, which does not mean that it's, like, lost forever. I can I could bring it in any time again? Perhaps it was just not the right time. Perhaps the question was not well formulated, whatever. So I I can try it again, of course. But this this is then this particular one is then rejected. Okay. But now we assume that we have an accepted topic. And here we have one user, shown by this this dot and one proposal document, which is here, this document. And now we have not only one user, but users that individually propose solutions. Like, for example, how could the town hall be fixed? And they can write, like, I don't know, five pages, pages, making drawings explaining exactly how the the roof could be fixed. But it could also be someone who just says, I I want the the roof to be read, and that's okay. Just one sentence, just one small idea that a person has and or opinion or need or whatever. That's also fine. And, in the next step, when we have collected all the opinions, we randomly assign those people in with together with their proposals into groups of three in this case, so in in small groups, with the simple ideas that it's much easier to discuss in small groups instead of large groups, of course. And, then we have one collaborative document provided for each group. And now the users have some tools available. It can be chat, can be forum, can be polls, can be video meet video calls. So whatever they want to use or whatever the software provides, or whatever the use case is, what what what makes sense. Can can even be a personal meeting, so they can even meet in person and discuss it. That's also fine. And their job in this group is to to come together. So to find ideally consensus about the different perspectives, about the different ideas, bring them together, write a common solution. And in parallel to this writing process, there is an election ongoing where people rate each other regarding three criteria, at least that that's what we suggest at the moment, cooperativeness, in the so how cooperative is this person in my group? How much does this person know about this particular topic, what we are talking about, and how engaged is this person? And, then after some time, this, is evaluated, and we have one representative for each group. And then we basically repeat the process in a sense that we, again, randomly assign now the representatives with, and those representatives take the group documents with them. And now they are again in small groups. They again have a collaborative document available. So you can imagine this collaborative document, of course, like Google Docs or so. And, again, they have, again, all these tools available. If it's not the last group, they, again, like, rate each other. And if it's the last group, they then write to find a document. And if we look to this in a little bit larger scale, then you can see how how this process looks with a little bit more people. So if we assume, like, we have 125 proposals for a specific topic, so 195 people that suggest a solution to a problem. And then in the first level, we they write a common solution. They rate as they vote for a representative. Then those representatives come again, randomly assigned to two groups of five. Again, in these groups of five, they try to bring together those group results in a new single group result of this group. Again, rate each other. We have one representative, and then those representatives, again, randomly assigned to a group. Or in this case, it's not randomly assigned because they're just five left. But anyway, we have the last group. They write to find a document, and that's it. And, what is nice about this approach is, that it scales logarithmically. So if we assume a group size of five, which is perhaps a good good size to choose, we would have for a village, for example, with 1,000 participants, we would require only five levels. So we could include 1,000 different opinions. And within five steps, in a sense, five discussion rounds, we would have a solution already. And we can scale this up, or we can scale this up to the whole world, where if we would include 8,000,000,000 people, which is very unlikely, because, I mean, and and there's no topic probably where really everyone would take place. But even if this would be the case, we would require 15 levels. And depending on how we choose the level times, would be two or three, perhaps four years. But then we have really included, like, every idea of everyone regarding a topic, yeah, for a solution. And that's, I think, the strength of this hypocrisy process. And, just to sum up, so we had, when we have a topic, we first select it, then we, then the users can individually propose it. Then we have this evolution process. And then finally, we have an evaluation. So when we have the final result, since we have only five people writing the final document, we would like to have, like, a measure for how good was this discussion process. And this evaluation gives us exactly this. So if 20% of the people who took part initially, who have proposed something, said, okay. This is good result. I'm happy with this. Then it's was probably not that good process or not that good result. If 80% are saying this is a good result, then it's probably a good result. And then it's up to the use case what you do with this measure. Either you decide to accept or reject solutions depending on on, I don't know, 50% level or whatever. That's up to the use case. Okay. Now let's look a little bit scientifically on this. This is what I would like to do a little bit more in the upcoming years. Here I I refer to Suru Wiki, so this wisdom of a crowd's book. And I added some some some more, resources, some some more literature to it, which is probably it's important now. And there are four criteria in this book. The first one is diversity of opinion, which means that you you need you don't want to have a small export group or a small, in general, selected group that solves the problem. You want to have a whole variety, so large distribution of people to solve a problem. And there are a lot of studies that show that if you have a diverse group of people, then you get very good collective intelligence results. And, Evoquasy is doing exactly this, because everyone can take part. You're not pre selecting any people. You're not, like, having entry in any entry barrier or something. Everyone can can bring in something. There is an independence of opinion, which means that, there's, there's there's there's no information provided to everyone that could bias the the outcome. So everyone is on its own, at least when it comes to the first stage where everyone proposes something. There is a decentralized aggregation process, which means that no central authority can in between say, okay. I don't like this idea. We we drop it out. Or I don't like this person. We don't want to work with him or her for the the for this discussion. So it's a decentralized aggregation process. And, we have trust between participants because the whole process is clearly defined in the beginning. We have transparency, and we can even improve this if we use open source software. If we use perhaps blockchain, this can even be more improved. So I think the criteria for collective intelligence are quite well met here with the democracy project. And now the question, how could it be used? So in principle, in in a lot of various ways, I I just provide you some examples. So it could be in in a in an organizational company, like, to have employee participation, we could use, kind of, crowdfunding, that people who are giving money to develop a product could actually also develop the product or at least parts of the product in in a very, like yeah. Very intense process in a way. Then we could use it for collaborative coding. This, I think, is would be quite interesting for open source projects where, you could see it as, like, what what is a topic in the advocacy process as then an issue. So people would write issues, like, issues on GitHub, for example. And then they could vote if these issues are important to solve. And if yes, everyone could suggest code to change it. And then you could use the evocceracy process to come together on a final quote piece of code that could change the the software. And then it could be included, and then you have kind of a collaborative coding process involved. You could use it for citizen participation. I think this is quite clear how to use it in this case. By the way, this this picture is my my hometown. And, there is, you can use it for, political decision making. For example, I think it would be very interesting to use it for, partitions, partitions, so that people could write partitions together, or parties could use it, for example. And finally, like, the global decision making approach. So since it scales so well, couldn't it be possible to use it in a global scale? And that's that's what I where I'm where I would like to take you with me a little bit further into this direction. So what what would actually be required to build a global democracy? So how could it look like? At this stage, see it rather as a collection, because it's I I just started to collect some ideas around it. And I think it gives an idea in which direction I'm thinking and in in which direction it could go, but it's not a mature project that I'm presenting now. It's just first ideas. And I would really be interested what you think about this, actually. So first, I think if we have a global decision making platform or even a global democracy in a way, the ownership need to be decentralized. So it's I don't want to see a small group of people owning a global democracy. So blockchain is or decentralized ledger technology is inevitable, I think. And there are a lot of projects that working into this direction. I think, actually, that there is no blockchain project at the moment that could provide us as I imagine it at the moment. But there are but, definitely, a lot of lot of projects that work in this direction. Naming, for example, Ethereum that is still very decentralized with small nodes, but still lacks sharding, which may or at least true sharding, which would make it a little bit more possible, perhaps. Then IPFS as data storage or combinations with ceramic ceramic, which is a project which includes blockchain and data storage. Arweave is a permanent permanent storage that is doing quite interesting stuff. So this this is something I I really have been I'm really looking a lot into at the moment. And the Internet computer, which is the as far as I know, only existing blockchain project that includes front and back end end data in completely and so everything decentralized. But the only problem here is that the nodes are very large, so so not everyone can run a node. So it's really not that decentralized as Ethereum, for example. Yeah. So just just giving some ideas in which direction this could go. And there would be some economic systems, some in incentives necessary. This is just very, very broad overview. So there would be some fees necessary that people pay for transaction. Not every everyone everything should be should be should cost money, of course, but some things would probably make sense to have transact transaction transaction fees for for or some contributions to the system. And what what is what is very important, I think, is that it's very important that people can earn if they engage so that they get rewards if they really put in several weeks of work and discussing and writing stuff together. They they they need to get some compensation for it. And there's an interesting approach called proof or I call it proof of engagement. It's originally called proof of political power from the democracy routes project, which is quite interesting, where people get, like, higher chances to validate blocks if they if they, if they engage in in the software or in the system. Okay. Second thing is, and this is, I think, quite interesting idea, is, to see this as a dynamic system. Because as I said, you can use Evocracy also with a code editor instead of a text editor. And if we would use it also with a code editor, you could aim inside of this platform. You could not only suggest topics that you want to discuss, like, what is important to society, but you can also discuss what needs to be changed about the software itself, like issues. And you can or software updates or whatever or security patches. And you can say, okay. I think we should bring in or we should change our software, our whole decision making system in a way that this and this feature is needed. So you suggest it. People vote on it, say, yes. This is relevant to to include. And they start the evoccer process evoccer process in coding, actually, what the what the new feature should look like. In the end, you have one code piece of code available that can directly be included. So we can see it as a kind of a self organized CICD pipeline, where the monitoring, planning, and coding phase is included into the evocristy part, and the rest is more or less automated. And then we have the idea of community parameters, which would mean that, during the so so no. That that every user can individually and continuously adapt all the system parameters. So you could imagine it as a settings page where you can say, okay. I believe groups of four make most sense. Another one says, no. I think groups of six make most sense, or or whatever parameter in the system is. And then you just use, for example, truncated mean that is then directly used as parameter in the system. So we use kind of collective intelligence to define the parameters of the system itself. So not only we not only use collective intelligence to to to find solutions, but we also use collective intelligence to code the software and to change the parameters of the system. Another problem actually that exists is authentication. Because in democracy, a big problem is, the civil attack. So when when one person creates 10,000 accounts, the person can easily spoil the whole discussion process. So we may need to make clear that we have an unique relationship between an actual person and the user in the system. And I personally believe that passport based solutions, even if they are certain knowledge based, are not the solution, at least in long term. Because, you know, if one country is not willing to provide this global democracy or or work together with this global democracy, they could they could, take away passports from users or from people, for example, to, yeah, make it impossible for them to to take part. And and and it's it's kind of importing a centralized solution, decentralized system. But but fortunately, there are solutions, namely in in the form of web of trust. And there's an which which is a very old idea. So this is goes back to the nineties, I think. But there is an algorithm called Sybil Rank that uses social graph analysis to give a clear value of how likely it is that a person is a real person. And this is used by a project called Bright ID that implements all of this in blockchain again. And it has a very nice additional feature called social recovery, which means that people who are, like, very close to you can recover your account if you if you lose it, which is a very, very nice idea. So so in in in principle, this basis on a decentralized or, let's say, mutual confirmation of existence in a in a sense or of, yeah, of being real. And this this can, of course, be there could, of course, be an additional reputation system that helps to make sure that people are really people. And on the other hand, it would, of course, be great if the system would not only allow global decisions, but also local decisions. And residence based solutions in a sense that you you take your, I don't know, ID card to prove that you're a resident of a specific town or so is a little bit too restricted. I see it more in general sense that we could build something like a web of identity, which means that, again, based on mutual confirmations of your identity, you could ask people to confirm your your identity of living in Berlin, or belonging to the Nile region, so the river in Africa, or being part of the hip hop culture in a sense. So you you can you can define your identity based on mutual confirmations, and then you could use it in democracy topics to to define for which identity groups in a sense, this topic is relevant. So if, for example, in some Berlin museums, there is some art taken away from the Nile region, like, I don't know, two hundred years ago, then you could and and someone wants to solve this, then the person would create a topic and say, okay. We we want to bring back the art to the Nile region from Berlin Museums, and he would include Berlin and then logical operation or with the NIE region. So all people from Berlin and all people from the NIE region could discuss together how this could be resolved. And the same, like, if people would discuss about, like, competition rules, like K pop competition rules in Berlin, they could do an intersection between the Berlin identity people and the hip hop identity people. So it's like a living identity in a sense, that could be used here. And then, of course, we need, efficient group discussions. There's a whole to say here, but I try to condense this as good as possible. So there is we can, of course, use different document types, editors, code editors, editors, whiteboards even. There's a group called Swamp Check here in Metagov community that use argument maps could also be included in the Novocracy process. We need good tools for conflict resolution. There we could use delegation, for example, like with liquid democracy. We could we could use qualitative methods like the IQwik pro IQ Wiki project, proposes, which is a little bit more psychological, who are also active here in the medical community. We could use vote based methods, which I find were interesting in a sense that it would be very interesting to vote on text changes in a document. I I digged a lot into this direction, actually. And there's a technical solution available called CRTT, but I'm I'm I'm not going into this perhaps too much, but, yeah, this is a very interesting part, I think. And then, of course, AI. We we can't we can't miss it out. And there is a lot of support that can, can be, can be given by AI assistance, like, during, in terms of deliberation, in terms of helping while the writing process, we can use collective knowledge. I'm coming to this in the last slide, in the next last slide. We can then use, like, LLMs to give us, like, suggest text changes based on chat, for example, which is a little bit what harmonica is doing, where, like, chatbot interactions are then integrated into a solution in a way. Then video call discussions, which can be transcripted, summarized, and also important for text changes, as the democracy routes project is doing, and so on. So there's a lot of things, I think, that can be can be done here. And finally, also very MediGolf related, I would say. So from Aviv, there is this bridging based ranking, paper, I think, from two or three years ago. What I find very interesting, I did not read it completely for now, but I will definitely do. And there are some projects that is doing things like this. So, the basic idea is to write recommendation algorithms that bring people together instead of building bubbles. And, there is a community notes, for example, very famous, POLIS, and also the global brain algorithm project that is part here in the that is also active here in the medical community. And, I I talked with Jonathan from the global brain algorithm project, and I've, I got a new perspective then on on this bridging based ranking. Because to me now, it seems like a like a a way of of really getting collective truth in a sense. So it's it it if if if you imagine, like, the what people think about a particular thing, if you imagine this as a distribution, and then this bridging based ranking somehow, narrows this distribution and gets brings people together in in what they see as truth in a sense. So it's kind of a collective knowledge or truth thing based on present or or or past events or information. And there is also prediction markets, which are a kind of collective knowledge for the future, which means, yeah, you can you can have high quality data about what will probably happen in the future, which is also very important, I think, for democracies. Like, there are these Web three projects, like Polymarket or or which are very well known. But there is also one one white paper from Royce Merkel. This is the famous famous cryptographer who gave name to the Merkel tree. And he he wrote a white paper. I think it's not so well known, but it's very interesting to read actually, about, Dow democracy, where he builds a whole or where he creates an idea of a whole democracy that is built on prediction markets. This is very interesting. Yeah. And I think, when I'm not wrong, I'm through with this. Yes. So if you yeah. I'm I'm I'm now very curious about what you think about this. So, if you would like to contact me, feel free to to contact me wherever you want. And so I think that the advocacy projects is or the advocacy decision making project is very mature already. So I think so from the tests we have done from from report to type that that we have programmed, and also from the descriptions that are more or less solid now, it's ready for research and for application, actually. While the Web three point zero democracy part is, like, just the very first ideas. And I just wanted to bring this out because I've not seen anything like this until now. If if there is someone who has already thought about this, perhaps even more than me, then let me know. But if not, then perhaps this could be a starting point to go into this direction. Okay. That's it. Thanks.

Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. So that's that was really a lot, but so I I I actually looked into sociocriti once. I think it's one year ago, but I cannot really remember everything. But, I I it's I think it's on my list to contact someone from that project to learn more, but then I never did it until now. But anyway, this this this is this is anyhow very interesting. So very, very little suggestions. So I can I can perhaps add some some things perhaps that we have also thought about already? So in in the advocacy open source software that we have programmed so far, the discussions are actually anonymous. So you don't know the names. So there's no profile in a sense. So in each group, you have new names and random so random colors, random names available. So you don't know if you vote for someone that is known for something or not, so everyone is equal in a sense. You don't even know if that if if it's the gender that this name is saying. So I could be Jenny or whatever. It's yeah. This this was one one thing that we implemented. Another thing is that every group has a forum that is public. So if I'm discussing in a group and then I miss something, people from outside, for example, from lower levels, can go into this and can say, hey, guys, we have already discussed about this. Please please bring it back. Or or this is an idea how you can improve this because in another group, they discussed this already or whatever. So there's some some horizontal, yeah, additional discussion possible. But but, anyway, so your these ideas are still very helpful. So I would, perhaps, I'm I'm contacting you at some point, because I would like to to make notes. Yep. Okay. Thanks. Yes.

Yeah. I just had a a a question about proof of democracy, a basic one. I would just like to learn more if you have any resources. You mentioned that there was a team called Root Democracy or Democracy Root?

Democracy Roots. Yes. Yeah. So so so they call it a proof of how was it? Proof of political power. And the idea So it's I think, it's not so much developed at the moment. I think, there is some some I don't know if if you can find it when you Google. I think, I think, Adesandro has written one document somewhere or on his blog or so, where he described this idea. So So proof of political power was this this term he used. And the idea was that if so that that if if you are in a in a blockchain based project in a way so so if, for example, the democracy discussion process would be in an in an in a blockchain, then if you are elected to be in the next round, in the next level in a group, then then you get some some something that gives you the right to validate blocks with a higher chance. So, like, lottery tickets in a sense. And the higher you get in this in this in this process, the more lottery tickets you get, the higher the chance that you that you will can validate a block and and get, of course, also reward for this. So it's kind of a a combination of, you take if if you engage in the software in in this democratic decision making, you're not only, helping to in in the consensus mechanism, but you're also, like, personally profit from it in a sense that you get more rewards the more you engage in the process. That is a little bit the idea. But but it's it's it's it's not not that I know, something that is more in detail going around, and Alessandro has written some ideas about this. It's not so much mature at the moment.

Cool. Thank you. And, while I have you, I just have one other quick question. So Yes. In terms of, like, these these nodes, these teams that are making their decisions, like, to what extent do they have an overview of the decisions that are being made by other nodes?

You mean you mean in in relation to the whole topics that that yeah. That's a very good question because at the moment so if if if it's just applied like it is in a sense, there is a high risk that people discuss the same thing all over again. So so there there needs to be, again, some AI assistant in a sense that helps you. So when you when you write a new topic and you say, I would like to discuss about this and that, and you write your question, your problem statement, whatever, that the AI suggests to you, okay, there is something that is similar. Look into this first because before you would suggest your topic, because we don't want to, do this again in a sense. And what is also an idea is, to to have reference references between topics. So if you create a topic, you reference to other topics that are related to this. Perhaps you build on top of discussions that were already there. But in a sense, it's also an open problem. So there are some ideas around how to to to work with this, but it's I would not see this as solved. So there's still a risk that things come up again and are discussed again.

Cool. Thank you so much.

there? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, very interesting thoughts, actually. So I'm I'm I'm actually also part of the cohort. So I'm I I I know about the so what what what what, they try to do there or what Metacorp is trying to do with the interoperability. And then so I would say, I mean, for hypocrisy, that's not so relevant, but or or it's relevant, but but hypocrisy is so I, at the moment, try to define hypocrisy as a protocol. So this should be interoperable by definition in a sense, or or at least that's my intention to have it interoperable in a sense. So whoever wants to include it can be included as a component, as a module, can be included in a monolithic software, so whatever they want to do. This is very open and possibly, yeah, possible to to include it in any whatever. But regarding the web web three democracy, I'm I'm I don't know. So I'm at the moment, I just collected a lot of ideas that I found during the last years, especially during the last month, especially here in in Metagov. And I'm I just collected some some things that I think could work well together. But I've I know I I did not think about too much about if this is better to have it more modularized, with interoperable small tools or if it's better to have one big, huge software that is doing everything. Normally, in blockchain systems, interoperability is possible and easy. And so, normally, also, like, you know, a good thing in a sense. But but I simply don't know. So I I have to find out which is the best way here. So I'm I'm not that far at the moment. And and and perhaps perhaps saying because because I'm saying I so it's actually I at the moment, especially what regarding Web three democracy. But, I'm I'm seeing this really as something where I would invite everyone, so everyone who has ideas can contribute. And my current idea is to start, perhaps, collab a collaborative white paper or so on GitHub, where I would perhaps start writing down the first ideas, and then people can join and help me writing this. So it's it's an op open process. I'm I'm not so especially regarding the Web three point zero democracy, I'm not seeing this as as something where I want to found a company on or so. So this is just a collaborative process here.

Yeah. I've I've not looked looked into this, actually. Yes. Yes. That's but but that's probably a good thing to look into this. But so what what what what I'm trying to do, in a sense, is actually very similar to what is now in the interoperable interoperability cohort happening. Like, trying to understand how these tool tools could work together. Because there are already a lot of collections about different collective intelligence approaches, I don't know, digital democracy approaches, whatever. And and I really I really want to invest my time to really understand them, and think about how could they work together. So it's actually very similar to what the interoperability approaches with a little bit different goal in a sense, but there are a lot of similarities, of course. Yes. And and and I I I don't want to to think to do things, double. So if if there already exists something, I don't want to rear went to wheel. So I I really want to to join forces wherever possible, of course.

Yep. So we first collect data, and then we try to merge it or converge the data in a sense. But but it doesn't doesn't mean that the data is like like, that you have exclusive exclusively concentrate on the data that was there initially. So when there is in level three, someone in a group that has a new idea, that this new ID ID can be included. That's okay. So then there is something that came in

You mean data in in in form of data data, like Yeah. The storage of data.

Yeah. So so and and it it depends on the use case, of course. So in so if if we're talking about the the Evocus decision making protocol, then it depends on on the use case. So if it's, like, a company that is using it, then the company would use the very traditional, perhaps, open source software that just is stored on a centralized server. That the data is stored there and then needs to be no no verification because you just trust that, I don't know, the company that is providing the software is doing the right thing. If you if you go a little bit higher in that level in a in a sense of trust, like, citizen participation, perhaps, it could make sense to include some blockchain parts, which means that perhaps the the groups in the end sign the group results, also the group they have where they had the discussion. And if they sign it, a hash of this group is stored in a blockchain, for example, and proves that all the people taking part in this discussion are happy with the result. Or all the people in the end sign that they were happy with the final result, and then it's you have some proof that this is was okay for those people and that no one actually has changed it because this is also a problem. You know, if if if you store the final result and someone manipulates the result, you can claim that, oh, this was what those people have discussed, but they never have But the beauty of the beauty

No. Yes. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. This is a this is an this is a better point. It's it's it's a good question. So, I mean

Thank you too. Alright. Noise for you. Thank you. Awesome