Okay. Let's make it full screen sent. Yes. I'll just go into presentation mode. Okay. So welcome, everyone. This is actually my second MetaGolf seminar. It's been a pleasure being part of the fellowship and also meeting some folks in person during the web. This is the work that we've been doing not only this year, but between the Real Media Collective and DISCO for the last ten years. So I'm going to talk first about DISCO and then about governance as it pertains to the interest of meta governance or maybe your work so you can see where we're coming from. Next. So for those not familiar, I'm not assuming familiarity with DISCO. DISCO is a many headed hydra. So maybe we can chop off a few heads. Explaining disco is difficult. It's kind of like explaining how to ride a bicycle. I can enthuse about the health and transportation benefits of cycling, but until you're getting a bicycle, you can see what it's all about. So DISCO is something that in our experience, once people get it, then they know how to articulate it for their own purposes. So instead of our direct definition, I'm going to give you three provocations or three coordinates of where DISCO comes from and is headed. And then if that doesn't satisfy you, I'll give you a little a little snippet. So the first definition of DISCO is next. Disco is a brand. And brand are mimetic complexes that use both soil social sciences, design, artistry, etcetera, to motivate people to consume, to buy things that they may not or may not need, but that they identify with. So brands are very potent and great drivers of our economy. Brands sell you things. So what does DISCO sell you as a brand? Well, next. DISCO is selling you what no one else will sell you, which is some type of capitalist, the colonial, and intersectional feminist futures. This is what we want to see on the label. These are the motivator and vectors that we want to promote so we can have different outcomes with with our economy. And as a brand, it's really inclusive because this goes also next. It's an open source conspiracy, which as far as conspiracies goes, makes it especially inclusive. And like any good conspiracy, next, the goal of the conspiracy is to take over the world. And, of course, this is funny and ridiculous, but it's also really serious because I think that we can all agree that we're in the midst of a convergence of social Here we go. And environmental crises. So why would we want to take over the world? Why would we want to have this open source conspiracy to take it back? We come from that generation of Occupy where many of us figured out we can actually do things better ourselves and self organize and not be afraid of promoting other nations in futures. And the way to take over the world or one of the ways would be next. We can see this go as an economic life action role playing game. If you take neoliberal economics, you can see it as a game with its own rules that you haven't consented to and that many people in the world have not consented to. Yet these games drives the actions, drives colonialism, drives environmental degradation, etcetera. So in this spirit of an open source conspiracies, what if we create a new game? What if we create a new rule book of economics that comes from the ground up? Economics that gathers all the innovations of alternative economics to give us something greater than the sum of the parts. So the mission of DISCO is creating the law of this live action role playing game so you can get together with your peers and develop your own game. And next, the purpose over here is to go from segregated economic alternatives to actual economic counter power. Again, with this belief that the many the many types of economies which are invisibilized by capitalism actually have more power than capitalist economics. So the gist of this go is how do we make these alternatives communicate with each other to have this economic to have this economic counter power? And if those definitions do not satisfy you, I can give you, like, a snippet. DISCO is a methodology for small groups of four to 20 people to self organize with commons economics and feminist economics. First of all, to have sustainable livelihoods, and then to meet up with all of these goals to create create more complex economic artifacts. But there's always a focus on small groups. K? So next. So here we come to Who the federates? Right? Sorry?

You got four you've got the reference over there. So that's the number that we recommend. Why? It's because this goes based on care work, and you cannot care you cannot actually activate variations of care in a network for a 150 people. So the number that we recommend goes down considerably. And, you know, it takes two to tango, but it takes three or four to just go. This doesn't mean that you can't join together into more complex artifacts, but you want to keep this basic group of people that you have a relationality with in these numbers. So governance. Governance as it contains to Metagorff, etcetera, and governance in the digital realm. Just the word governance comes with its own impute biases that I think are worth examining. So governance, next, comes from the grid governance, which literally means to steer. And by steering, you obviously have someone who is producing the actual towards others. So you already have a division between the governed and the governing and the governors. And, of course, in the case of Greece, the governors are the ownership classes. They're the oligarchs. They're obviously not the slaves, obviously not the women. So when we talk about governance in political economy since the nineties, there has been, you know, in liberal economics, this notable assumption that there's an expert class which governs. And you can see this in the blockchain space. We can have a series of people design smart contracts for people to buy in and to follow and to make these great economic schemes. But if there's no cultural legibility where people feel ownership of how they're governing themselves, then that's not the type of governance that we want to see. Although our historical examples would be next. And it require grand council governed by consensus, which I'm critical of. But, hey, here we have 75% of the mothers and 75% of the men actually ratifying decisions. So no decision no decision goes forward, and I guess it has that type of ratification. This gives rise to a very different type of political economy, which I would associate with the commons. The commons understood as a social process where a group of people gather around a gift or a resource, whether whether it's material or cultural, and govern it according to their own norms and protocols, not those of the market, nor those of the states of the state. And the commons is nothing new. I mean, you can argue that this is the de facto mode of social organization. So coming from the commons and towards governance, we want to know what we're governing towards. What is the purpose of governance? And I would say, next, that the purpose is to articulate value. We want to have agreements on our behavior and on our action to promote our values. And, of course, neoliberal economics, there's a great dichotomy between the purported values of liberalism or the universal declaration of human rights and the actual value that is tracked and measured in the economy. So to talk about value, next. Here are a few pointers. This is riffing mainly on David Kraver, both towards the definition of value and the first five thousand years. Value is collective behavior. It's a process guiding our collective be our behavior. It's and it can it can be divided into three components. It's our production, what we make, recording, how we tally our productive actions, and actualization, how they manifest. So in capitalism, production is for profit and extractive and built on our legacy of colonialism and market training. Recording is opaque and abstract. And one of the particularities of capitalist recording is that recording lets you have more capital, meaning numbers make more numbers. So you can see with things like derivatives, etcetera, that just the act of recording promotes more information that has no con effects on the real world. An actualization in capitalism is exchange values. Only the only thing that's value is that that those things that can be traded and sold in the market. In a disco, in common space, peer production, in the common, production is communal, both in sense of ownership and in sense of decision making. We decide together what to produce for need. Recording is transparent based on all the notions, which I will speak about. And actualization is for use value, not for exchange value. Actualization means things that can be shared, things that can be used over and over, not merely sold as as commodities or services. Something else that Graeber said that I find particularly illuminating is that often the discussion on value is about who appropriates the surplus value. The working class, the precariat, the disenfranchised, people with cool haircuts. It doesn't matter, but this doesn't strike at the question of codetermining what value really is and working towards the articulation of new values, again, away from from capitalism. What we propose in this call is that this articulation of value be centered on, next, on care. And I would say that capitalism is actively anti care. Unfortunately, we cannot do this. You may care about things. You may care about the environment, but current economics and current value driven propositions will not allow you to do that. Okay? And to give a definition of care, next. Here's a quote from Bernice Fisher and John Thornton, and they say, on the most general level, we suggest that caring be viewed as a species activity that includes everything we do to maintain, continue, and repair our world so that we can live in it as well as possible. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environment, all of which we seek to interweave in a complex life sustaining way. So this is the kind of value proposition that this call wants to work towards with its governance proposition, caring for ourselves and caring for caring for the planet urgently as everyone can understand care, and everyone can understand that the application of care towards these actions can remedy many of the problems that we find ourselves mired in. Next. So governance modeling. By modeling, I mean, there's no one governance model. There's no perfect solution. And if we're talking about groups of four to 20 persons, governance has to be based on their specificity. Another of the critiques that we have in this call, both a blockchain culture, but even coming from earlier Internet cultures and commerce based peer production is this obsession with scaling. And scaling is the mentality of colonialism. I may have something small, and I think that it's really cool, so I'm going to scale it. And in the act of scaling it, I will be raising existing cultural traditions that may not be able to defend themselves against the scaling. So here, we propose federation, and we propose replication. So as far as governance goes, we're going to give next. Patterns instead of blueprints. Blueprints assumes that all possible variables have already been worked out within certain parameters. And, again, you can see this as smart contracts or you can see this as the results of game theory rather than the messiness of human life, emotions, and things that just happen. So So our pattern approach is what we suggest for any organization that wants to delve into into governance. And for a short definition of patterns, next. Here we have our next track by my mentors, David Polio, Selk Helfrich, talking about, Christopher Alexander. In Alexander's view, a pattern describes a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core, the kernel of a solution to the problem in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over without ever doing it the same way twice. And this is the ultimate purpose of this co governance, meaning you figure out your governance for your situation and you document it. And you document it so there's a precedent that's accessible, that's taggable, that has metadata that you can search for so that other people can be inspired by your solution, but then arrive at arrive at this. Next. Okay. So the fan the four main patterns of this co governance are roles, who's showing up, who are the people, and what do they do, elements, how you work together, what kind of social agreements you can enter to make sure that this value proposition towards care is being coming out. Value, recording. How do you record the value of contributions and decisions? These four elements, you can find in any organization. So we encourage people to examine this when they come out, when they're questioning the wrong the wrong governance. We're gonna go through each of them. So sent. If you go to the next one. So roles, this is about your group. Groups are very heterogeneous. It's not a question of people who show up for forty hours a week anymore. Some people may show up more, other people may show up less, etcetera. Some people may be more committed. So it's important to distinguish the roles and the intensity of the relationality within roles. So next. Within this co governance, we talk about casual or committed relationships. So if I was to to ask consent about meta gov, maybe there's x number of people that show up to the seminars. There's x number of people that show up in the Slack. But there's densities. There's densities of those who show up, and often you find imbalances between people who put in, like, a lot of care work, yeah, and people who just show up with regularity and then disappear. So it's important to have commitments, and you can see this like relationships. So you can have casual relationships. Hey. I like you. I check you out. We go out for dinner, and then we have fun later. And then maybe see you never, and then you have committed relationships. I expect you to be there for me. And between casual and committed relationships, this time talking about organizations, we have dating. This is why you check each other out. So in this call, we we recommend the dating phase of nine months where you incorporate people with intensive and bidirectional mentoring. Meaning, when you incorporate someone in a disco, you're not just handing them the rule book. You're entering in dialogue with them with the assumption that you can learn from people coming in so that they can also have a sense of ownership. This allows people to accrue contributions to the work that they're doing and then be rewarded according to the stage of dating that they're at until they become until they become committed.

Elements are modular working practices that we've been experimenting with for the last ten years that we suggest that collectives can explore, incorporate, and make their own to, again, smooth both their productive and their reproductive work. And some elements are next. Community rhythms. It's very important for working collectives to have set rhythms when you show up. Do you have a daily rhythm? Do you have a daily check-in? Do you have a weekly check-in? Do you have, like, a biweekly call where you're examining, I don't know, whether it's KPIs or purposes, how you're doing and how you're feeling? Do you have a quarterly evaluation? So it's very important to to have this rhythm stated and for everyone according to the level of contribution to be more more or less present within these realms. Mutual support is all the invisible work that's routinely done in organizations and usually highly gendered of how people feel. Here, we we suggest that if you are working in a group that every month, you take an hour and you have a call with someone where someone someone else from the group just listens to you for an hour. It's just there for you. No questions asked. You just show up. And you can do, like, a conga line of mutual support. This is good because you get to know people away from their productive matrix, and you also have a space just to be yourself and have someone to to listen to you. Commitment statement is something that you can do quarterly, and this usually follows a template where you basically write up what you will be doing, what your commitment will be to the organization. And the commitment statement is self evaluated. No one's going to be evaluating your work by you but you on a quarterly basis. So after three months, you say, oh, I did this. I held my commitment, or I didn't or I couldn't carry it through, which is a very important litmus test for organizations to see what's working, what isn't. And working circles are permeable areas of specialization. So in an organization, you may need to have someone doing the finances and the taxes. You may need to have someone doing the social media and communication. Maybe someone else is doing research. This will pertain to economic democracy, which I'll talk about in a minute. But these areas of specialization and how to be clear in the kind of work that you feel compelled to do, but also on the kind of work that you don't want to do on red lines, etcetera. So we make sure that there's a balance there's a balance between desirable and less desirable work, and you know who to attend to when you want to work in a specific area. Next. Okay. Value tracking. So we spoke about, the recording of value earlier. And in this call, rather, basing ourselves solely on exchange value on abstract notions like GDP, we encourage people to measure three types of value. Next. So the first one is the work that is recognized in the market, livelihood work. If you're a co op that is offering goods and services, this is what this is how you cover your mat. This is what you get paid for. If you're a nonprofit, livelihood work is the funded work that supports whatever project proposal you've been awarded a grant for. But part of this goes to cover love work, and love work is voluntary work done for the commons. Voluntary work or sweat equity is done continuously, but it's often invisiblized. Sometimes it's in groups. Some people do this love work while other people appropriate it to get livelihood. And, again, this is nothing new, and this is you can routinely see this in the creator economy or YouTube people that are doing things for free to then be able to promote products, etcetera. But in this call, we codify it. So So livelihood work and love work are both types of productive work. The first is recognized by the market. The second isn't, but it's recognized by the disco, which is a value distribution that I'll talk about in a minute. The third one is reproductive work, care work. Care work, there's two types of it. It's caring for the mission of your organization. If your disco, if your co op has a spirit, has a set of values that you want to work towards, do you want to make sure that you're caring, that you're feeding them actively so that it thrives? And it's also caring for the people in the organization with practices like mutual support. Care work is really important. Away from capitalism and in activist circles, you often find that a lot of people doing the admin are doing the shit work because there's no there's no specialized administrative staff doing that. This is the less shall we work, but it's important. It's work that's vital to keep organizations running, so we want to visualize it. Okay. And the fourth pattern of disco governance, yeah, you're getting the hang of it, is decision making. Next. And here I want to quote Robin Hanel of PowerCon. If you're familiar with Paragon, Paragon is a really cool participatory economics. It's a really cool concept that I find unrealistic. This goes a way to build bridges towards futures like Paragon in the here in the here and now, but still it has some great value. So what Robin Hanel says, our economic democracy is that the problem with majority rule is simple. When a decision has a greater effect on some people than others, by giving each person equal vote, those more affected by decision can find themselves overruled by those who are less affected. And this is something that you can see in COPS with one person on vote. Going on, economic democracy should be defined as decision making input and power in proportion to the degree one is affected by different economic choices. We call this economic self management. I believe that thinking about achieving economic self management for everyone is the best way to think about achieving economic democracy. There's not one type of decision. Your economic decisions are gonna have knock on effects on the people implementing them or the people affected by them. So we need to seek out mechanisms so these decisions are made in proportion to how they will bounce back on you or another groups. So next. So in this co governance, decision making can be differentiating between casual, audited members, and commit committed members. So everyone is invited to vote, but only committed members have veto power or make binding binding decisions. It's also based on who's showing up on the rhythms. If someone hasn't showed up for three months and their decision proves to be a hindrance, maybe you can say, well, you haven't shown up, and you're not being as affected by this decision, so we're going to prioritize other people's deficient decision. Who's affected? If it's a decision which is within one person's proven expertise and experience within their working circle, maybe it's again, this is all with this opposition of, like, conflicts and when decision isn't when not everyone is making making the the the same choice. So working circles are another important distinction that can help you fine grain this type of decision making. Multi constituent consultation. Co ops are really good at democratizing ownership and decision making for those involved in the productive process in the legal entity and and the coop, but not so much on those who are affected by the economic activity. So here, we took inspiration from social care coops in Romania and Quebec. So for example, in the areas of medicine and caretaking, you have four types of stakeholders. You have the state who's providing the funding. You have the professionals, the doctors, and the nurses. You have the patients, and you have the family members. So this is a much richer conversation on what actions to partake rather than something directed from the top down. In this goal, we encourage, again, with logic and rhythms, if you have board, you check-in with the board every three months. Or when you're stuck in a decision, you go there. Another historical credits, and this has to do with the measurement of value that I'll come back to in a minute. Those who have invested the most in the disco when there's a conflict, those who have a bigger stake should have more decision making power. But, again, in principle, in our experience, is mostly one person, one vote, and it doesn't matter if it's a casual or committed member because when you build a good culture of collaboration, and when you have clear communication, decisions tend to go smoothly. But having all these mechanisms, which are based on your investment in the working collective, can be quite helpful in getting on the stack. Next. One week. Most of you

Okay. Yeah. Let me see. I'll go next. Yeah. I think that in five minutes, I can give you a practical example of disco value tracking, and then we can move it to discussion. So we're imagining value in action. This is next. This is an infographic that we made on how this core value tracking works and how value is distributed. I have this calculus. So I this was checked by someone who knows their math. So this call economies and governance are determined by each individual of this call. And how it works is that it's meant by another discourse shareholder whose work is accounted in three ways. These are value streams. We've spoken about them, livelihood, love, work, care work. So these shares determine instead of in a corporation where you get, like, the payout of the shares at the end of the year based on your economic access, your payout is based on your on your contributions. Open value accounting. When you're doing productive work, we recommend that the productive work is based on tokens. Meaning, if it's translation, if it's lines on codes, that's something that you can count. And that care work is measured in time and hours. But you can explore the tensions between tokenization and time tracking and also just casual notions of value, reporting, speaking about what you valued. Work is all the reproductive work done to maintain the disco and keeps its members happy. So when working all three streams has been accounted for, each type of share is paid out on a monthly basis, we recommend, based on current liquidity. So Fadesco has €10,000 of cash available in one month. 75% is going to go towards livelihood shares, what you've accrued as productive work recognizes the market. 25 goes towards love work shares, which is the type of commerce creating work that is not recognized by the market. So its market is divided according to individual member shares in livelihood. Here we have these three characters. Joannina has 25% of livelihood shares and 40 of love shares. So they paid this much. I'm gonna go quickly through this, but you can I can share the infographic so you can check them out? Kia Chi has 50% of livelihood shares and 25% of bluff shares. Julio has 25 from 35. What this means is that those who are doing more voluntary work are not penalized over those who are doing work recognized by the market. It evens out. And next share. Next slide. Sorry. And care works is like a tax. So if everyone has done the same amount of care work proportionally to their time investment, then the payment remains the same. But if there's been if you see or whatever it says, eight hours, four hours, three hours, because there's differential in care works, those that have done less will compensate those that have done more care work. So if a person is working twenty hours a week and they've done five hours of work care work and everyone else has, that's great. If a person that's working twenty hours has done two hours, they have to compensate those three hours to to to those who have contributed more. What does disco governance accomplish? It encourages and rewards all types of work, care, love, and livelihood, per its discourse value agreement. It values forms of power to act, not power over, but power with, centered around the commons. It highlights effective and movement building work, which is often hidden. It optimally balances the workload to avoid activist burnout. It creates community empowered platforms for sustainable activism. Activism is a privilege to those who can be willing to be activated and have their needs met. And this call puts activism where we feel it belongs, which is in the workplace. It enables economic resistance, and the disco governance economic model enables federated missions oriented corps to practice value sovereignty and address urgent social environmental crisis. Next. So if you want to the purpose of this, the purpose of having many governance patterns, so many governance models, so many discourses is federation. So we have an economic syntax. So we have if we're talking about live liberty, we're talking about care work, etcetera. So we have mutually legible terms to design and federate, again, not scale our economic systems. We want this to be modular. We want to be able to to have value streams and a syntax that allows us to communicate in these new ways and to promote mutual recognition. If we want to get away from normative neoliberal economics and normative cryptoeconomics, we need science and we need we need the we need the cultural solidarity before we design technical systems to implement them. And the way to make bigger, more complex artifacts are discos, which are stable circuits of value creation composed of several discos and disco clusters where you can get together with various discos, various co ops to do a specific project. Each of this has its own has their own value flows. Next. So if you wanna check out stuff, you can go to disco co op. We've just renewed our website, So the information is presented a lot more clearly. Next. Thank you, Sant. So you got videos and stuff. Next. Media. We have our publications, the manifesto, the elements, a series of articles, and videos. Next. And what I recommend if you're new to DISCO is that you check out the DISCO basics. Next. So this is interactive site with pop up pop up glossary definitions. Next, that has been optimized for video and mobile, where we talk about what is DISCO, DISCO principles, so which is journey of labs, the futures, the DISCO project, how to get involved, DISCO terminology, and more on DISCO. If you're not familiar with disco or you haven't checked in since the manifesto, this is what I would recommend. This is your first stop. Next. Thank you, Sund. Finally, again, disco co op. You can write to us at hello@discocoop. If you want to write to me, you can go to my website, Slack or Works, or follow me on whatever Twitter is called these days, or preferably in Masterdom where I'm a proud member of social co op, and you can find me there. Thank you. So I want to thank Scent because this this this is an example of invisible work, unkind of work. I was a translator for many years, so I'm very used to, like, being the people behind the scenes that actually make those who are up in front being able to do with this. That's it.

Sure. Thanks for this great and really interesting discussion and presentation. So I was thinking about I went to the I forget the exact name. It was the Radical Care Economics for Rotten Systems event in Berlin back in July. And I was thinking about it because we spent a lot of time talking about care and, like, the value of care. And I'm a social worker by professional background and, like, you know, it was my experiences in some ways, like, after finishing undergrad and working a lot of, like, low wage jobs and all these kind of undervalued things that made me interested in that field. And I I think something that came out, but I don't know if it's as explicitly articulated, maybe it's somewhere in the manifesto. But, you know, it's, like, valuing of care work and shit work and seeing, like, care work particularly in organizations, so even, like, administrative work. In some ways, it it seems like to me that's the crux of an alternative to, like, a DAO model, right, where a lot of work can just be seen as, like, delegated to smart contracts or other kinds of, like, automation or, you know, agents or entities that are not human because it doesn't need to be done by humans. But in some ways, what DISCO is arguing, that work is also vital and essential. Right? And it must be valued. It can't just be, like, automated out or designed in such a way where we don't need to do it. Is that a fair understanding?

Yeah. It's it's not a question, but I agree with your with your statements. I mean, in blockchain culture, you only if we'd talk about, like, an investabilization of care work, it's what's off chain. In the off chain side, you both have power influences by those who design the mechanisms, and then you have all the other work that's not that's not recognized by the by the protocol. You know, the shared work the shared work that, yes, we do want to automate, but there's also beautiful artisanal work that you may want to do with more slowness and more care and more process and being able to to share the joy the joy of that. So I think it's finding a balance between that which in one organization like, I hate accounting, so I would love for accounting to be more automated. To me, there's no artisanal contribution to it. In In an organization, maybe there is. Maybe there is a poetry in accounting that I'm not seeing. So, again, this is not for me to determine, but for each organization to see what do we want to spend more time on. And this is what the design of our tools should be so we can spend more time on care work. And care work, again, both for people and both for if you're in a collective of designers to making your designs more beautiful. If you're in a collective of makers to make whatever, whether it's furniture, whether it's installation, to be able to do them with more intentionality and save up on the work hours of the staff. It really don't that really doesn't inspire you.

Okay. So if you find Alexander Boring, and I do, where we got most inspiration from party language, so I think I go to that from free runner free, fair, and alive by David Poli and Sikkahev, which where they are they're not really applying Alexander to Komorin. Komorin has always left behind a trail of patterns, which we can recognize, but they use Alexander to be able to extract. They actually also published a compilation of patents of common name. So if you want to approach it at leap from a more in a more convenient sense, I really recommend that book. In this course, there's no power held over by financial contributions. It's swag equity. It's contributions, whether it's in care work or involuntary work. So, again, it gets you away from nominal shareholding based on economic privilege. I would like to have a dialogue on what you're proposing because there may be there can be, like, in the sense of a nonprofit or something that does funded work where there's always an influence by those that hold more economic power. And even if this influence is not directly manifest, it's something that's so that's something worth taking into account. But, again, it's not how many tokens you've bought on an ICO that gives you that gives you the power. Is the work that you've actually done.

Absolutely. And, I mean, I can tell you our personal experience in the Rilla Media Collective. All of this is really good, but this is to have more clear discussions. This is not to set off this is not to have a smart contract go into the bank accounts to determine payments and levy penalties. So we had situations where someone couldn't pay the the rent. And the value proposition said, this is what this person gets paid. This is what we get paid. And then we pull together so that person could pay the rent, and then that person came back. And this is the importance of care work, and this is the importance of small group dynamics. And with a blockchain without DAO, you know, like, the the legality have no legal recourse. It's automated. It's, you know, the the famous vending machine analogy. You're not going to argue with a vending machine, but unless you're you're sampling it you're sampling it really hard. So, again, all of this value visualizations are mostly the visualizations so that people so that normal people can get accustomed to talk about value and to talk about value and make decisions and consequence according to real life circumstances because the exception will always be the rule. And the shit will always be the fun. And, again, you cannot predict everything, like, via via blueprints. So there's a reliance on dialogue and on good communication, but also on tracking because, I mean, if you're putting up if you're doing, like, a resistance box continually for one person, then it's time to have that discussion. Also, when people are not able to contribute more, it highlights the factors that does not allow them to contribute more. And, again, here we have ableism. Here we have lots of things that get left out of, like, many digital domains that we think that it's worth talking about.

Yeah. What we recommend, and, again, this is up to its individual organization, is consent. I find that consensus brings with it power influences where people are obliged to, you know, like, let's unlock the decision. We must reach consensus. We must reach consensus. Consent lets me say, I fucking hate this. Then it may give me the pleasure of I told you so I told you so when something when something goes wrong. So you can and and and I think that dissent is not something that should be that should be sanitized. So it's more it's more complex than that. Within outside, I mean, we do propose multi constituent covenants, meaning that it's not just the people again, to go back to our very loving critique of co ops because we love co ops. Don't limit the decision making on economic decisions that may affect other to just the people working on the co op, but also be in consultation in consultation with others. But, I mean, the big vision, the big purpose is to articulate these practices so they become second nature. So you can interlock and you can enter into economic relationships with with other people. And to me, economic relationships are not just transfers of value, but also transfers of information, transfers of intentionality, what you what you want to do. But it's just outside influences. When you mention it, to me, I would say, well, I mean, you know, like the market or capitalism or the realities the legislative and normative realities that we keep crashing against, noble as our attempts may be. So, you know, I mean, we we do live in this atmosphere, which is permeated, if not dominated by capitalism. What we want to do is highlight the power and the action and ability of all the alternative economics, which we think again, if you see capitalism in a process of catabolic collapse, part of the mission with DISCO is raising the ground. It's we'll we also talk about it, like, in credit economics. Yes. You can have a legal form. You're paying taxes during the market, but you're ready to step away. You're being naughty. You're practicing the other religion that they will not allow you to do to be able to step in this into this next system. But it's not easy enough.

Thank you.

Hey. I just wanna say thanks. Really cool presentation, and it was hard to get to a question on this. But I think the the choice of the word care is a good one, in my opinion. I think just I'm I'm you know, this might be, like, a personal question, but I'm hoping you can kinda relationally, like, help me understand the selection. And the the other words that kinda came to mind are, like, stewardship, defense, you know, like, why stop? I care. Why not just why can't why not call love? Right? Like, in that as a an overall concept. So, like, how did you arrive at, like, monmetically the the shared sense using the word care given that future was, like, so happening?

It's very simple, feminist economics. Feminine both feminist and ecological economics are routinely ignored, we found in blockchain cultures. And, again, if you're talking about decentralization, to me, the decentralization is not of, like, an informational topology or a series of transaction, but it's the decentralization of power. And the trifecta of power is capitalism, the patriarchy, and colonialism. So, again, feminist economics has investigated the concept of care. Why not love? Because love can be uncomfortable, so for some people. Love, there's there's a subtle manipulation sometimes that the word love is attached to. But, again, the the usage of care is because there's an economic there's a well documented economic tradition that talks about it. Sorry because, Steve, you mentioned the cut, the disco cut. So this is community algorithmic trust. This is a way to to use kind of, like, the logic of a community land trust where a group of people with a shared intent find a legal way to perpetuate what that intent is. So, like, we get a piece of land and we make sure that this isn't exploited for your luxury apartments, but it will be a park. So this is what you want to do with your program and with your technical design. Do you want to have, like, a trust that continually reflects the inclinations of the group, and I mean continually reflects. Reflects. So this is why it says, like, every three months, check that your coordinate says that your value equations have actually coincided with lived reality.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For being for being my DJ.