Okay. We're gonna begin the, our presentation today, which is the second in a series of conversations, with, with Exa, the Economic Space Agency. So we'll hear from, Excelli, Petko, and and Jonathan from from the Economic Space Agency. Take it away.

Sure. And that allows us also to move to the slides. But, yeah, the key reason why is also kind of along the lines of the guiding questions we wanted to put to the session. But in a summary, we think as rights as we conceive or reconceive it, I would maybe stress that it's not quite the historical concept of rights, but it's rather a certain kind of structural read of why they were so central in, especially, the birthing moments of state structures and so on and what what is structurally potential in them. And in a nutshell, in a kind of design heuristic nutshell, I would say that they form a Lego piece that can be used to construct what we con con consider as governance, but they can be also used to construct what we consider as economy and the different conventions in each. That is if one thinks of something like an example of, like, a protocol of voting. You can kind of construct it from the sense of, first of all, whoever is a member or participant or an able participant in this voting has a right, perhaps to vote. They might have a right also to propose. Both of these would address different parts of a protocol. And and then once one would go through a voting protocol itself, the protocol itself would have a right, for example, to take some assets from an organization and move them to a person who made the proposal for what was defined in the proposal proposal in the first place. So we're looking at the rights really functioning as a leg of peace that that everything that is in the proposal engine and the protocol of voting as capable of constructing out of rights. But, similarly, if we take something like certain paradigms of economy, let's, for example, take ownership. The ownership in itself is a very fussy concept. Like, ownership of a car is different from ownership of a house and so on and so forth. It it and I think, for us, the clearest way to put it is it's a kind of amalgamate of rights that you have rights to open your car and rights to loan it and etcetera. But it's an amalgamate because these things have kinda melded together, and and there's no kind of analytic to this. But everything that is inside an ownership can be produced from a rights model. And furthermore, as we, I think, are coming to a time not just with crypto, but including cryptoeconomics, etcetera, and crypto governance, where we have to go beyond just saying I own this, whatever that is. The rights offer the possibility of breaking down and forming tailorable forms of that kind of do the same thing as ownership, but do it in a much more exact and designed manner. Like, I have my rights to an organization might not be ownership, might not be even an equity structure, but it might be that I have right to make proposals, but I don't have a right to vote. I have right to make proposals and vote. I have a right to propose, and and I have certain ratio to voting, etcetera etcetera. So in this sense, like, something like an ownership also breaks down into rights, but the rights also point out how we can view it in a much more expressible, flexible, and pieceidable manner once we get over once we get beyond this in itself a fussy concept like an ownership. But it also proves to this key point that what we consider as economy and finance and what we consider as governance are essentially dependent on each each other. Like, if we look at something like a token like unit or even something like an equity unit, What really is the basis of the value is the organizations that allow them to operate, like an exchange, like organizations that back up and authorize them. Like, for example, in a fiat currency, this can be related to the organization of the state. But, of course, crypto these organizations might be the holders or upkeepers, the maintainers, etcetera. But remove all of those organization. Let's say, remove all the organizations that allow for interactions, exchanges, remove the developers, and those tokens or equities don't hold any value. So in this sense, like, something like a token, it's better to not view as a store of anything, but more like a piece of mirror. And what it mirrors is the organizations that enable its functionality. The token itself does not hold anything. And and this, of course, ends up in a situation where we are looking at an intertwining between governance and economy itself. Like, those organizations have to be built by governance principles and yet and then they can allow for economy. So for these reasons, we think it's a key design starting point and a point of composition to have a piece that works as a leg of peace for both governance and economy. So that's that's the key interest in rights. But another key concept we have is an organization, and this is also not quite the traditional historical sense of organization. Maybe the easiest way to understand it is, like, to start again from rights and and note that it would be impossible to create a right that flows floats solely in in in emptiness. The the only way that right has any right to itself is that it creates a network with other rights. And here, we can refer back to the voting example. That voting protocol is a network of rights. It connects to users who have rights to it, and then that protocol itself has rights, for example, moving assets. And only by this network of rights, we can have actual functionality from rights themselves. Beyond that, once we have this sort of networks of rights, they actually become birthplaces for rights. And this is not even new. It's how even company works. How you have rights in your workplace is that that organization that the company is is the source of generating new rights for its scope or its subscopes. And this in itself is another, let's say, a design principle, but a certain kind of lucidity of way of looking at organization and its possibilities, but also looking at possibilities of governance. And we also think that it kind of points out certain tendencies in in, let's say, DeFi culture and why DeFi actually has, even with the tool that is very limited towards organization, heavily, heavily emphasized kind of organizational direction because that's the possibility for them to actually create more complex economies they're created within the organizations they become. So this is the key, let's say, the first way, heuristically, to look at organization. It is the network of rights. And and by that, it also becomes the birthplace of rights in none of themselves. But with this model, like combining rights and creating networks out of them, by our testing, you can create a Centella version of any legacy organizational structure and and create the functional model out of it. It. It's like the house with Lego, the car with Lego, etcetera. But beyond that, you are able also to look at organization in a wider sense, in the senses that have not been created yet. And and because you have constantly the possibility of building towards what we call them, the nation only think of as economy and conventionally think of as organization, you can always make hybrids in and of themselves, like like organization that creates this token structure, etcetera, is using the same medium. But then one key point from this in a in a practical design sense is that from this model, a user is ultimately an organization. And this one can concretize by, let's say, even using something like Facebook as an example. Like, what is the user there? It is a vessel of rights or at least can be analyzed as a vessel of rights that it has a right to post post or an image, etcetera, and these become available in the context that it governs within the rights that it has. And the user itself, the person is really not in the platform. It's more like the user enters a car, and it's the car that is in the world, not the user. But that also means that the car itself, the vessel, has an organizational form because it's a network of rights. And, similarly, we can think of as an object or what we think of as an objectuality. An example of this would be if we don't think of, let's say, an artwork as a work or an object in a physical sense, but in this network of economy, it is, first of all, for example, a rights to its sketches, and then it becomes an organization of rights to hold it or rent it or own it, or it becomes a right to remix it, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. All of these are actually a much more wider scope of the existence of that object, both economically and organizationally, and and, therefore, and organizationally, and and, therefore, open up a wider sense of the relations that, that, object can be. But in itself, returns to the same formal approach that an organization does in a traditional sense or user sense. Object does the same. Now there are some other nerdy parts, but there there is a kind of a very minimalized model of producing these right structures and and organization from there. And this this may be a topic for another time, but we have this model of approaching definition from two ways, from actuality and potentiality. But maybe for now, because the time is running short and and also in the interest of kind of being more practical about it, I could maybe more move to what do we do with this and what are we doing with this. Actually, I already started this by referring to the exacordex, which is an example of one experiment of how to express this. It's not the only form of ex expression, and it's also not the only form that we're developing. But we have been forming out different practical ways of utilizing this grammar approach and using them to explore new forms of organization. Towards these forms of expression, I think we are still in a kind of alpha stage. I think the principles are more stable. The principles, for example, expressed here. But this is a form, I I think, we we are kind of highly interested in experimenting with others. It it is a ground that actually has the benefits of describing for organizations and economies for programming because it's highly close, even though it's not the same, to a paradigm called object capabilities, which is a rights based form of programming, essentially. So in and of themselves, these expressions are moving the structures that we create closer to programmability. But at the same time, it is a playground. It is a ground of conceiving, communicating, and potentially even exploring also outside of programming in the real world. We are, for example, thinking physical experiments in places in Berlin of three weeks of a particular organization. And this goes to the exploring of the unknown mentioned in the slide, the art of organization. The point is to also try to give form the things that are are possible but yet unknown. And and this area is something I think we're strongly looking for different kind of collaborations, collaborations that don't really have to kind of follow the forms of expression or the paradigms we have developed, but more like maybe find ways that people could even mutate or or recreate these kind of things for themselves, both in terms of their final forms or forms created from it or in in terms of the expressions themselves. So so that's that's something an undertaking we're doing, as mentioned in the beginning, for ourselves to eat our own dog food. But at the same time, it is something we are looking as a way to collaborate with others in different kinds of forms from and and to real world organization. So that's, I think, a good place to stop. I probably talked too long and and gives the voice to someone else.

Okay. Thank you. Does does anyone else in your team want to wanna, you know, just add anything before we get into into questions?

Josh has a just quick response, then we'll get on to some questions.

Hi. Thanks, Jonathan. I guess I just wanted to ask. So you were talking about these ontologies as sort of social historical verities. And I wanted to ask, like, on what degree does UCSA engage with these different ontologies? And then maybe there's, like, a couple of different options. Like, something that, I think that Seth can speak to because, something that we've been, kind of project we've been collaborating with a couple other mathematicians and economists is, you know, we're kind of encountering the fact that, like, economists and, like, people who do organizations have very different thoughts, at least in academia. Right? They consider very different questions, speaking very different languages. And, you know, posing sort of, like, it's been so far been really hard to match these, like, different languages and concerns at a level. It just just as a question of, like, introduce introduce for any science. Right? But there's, of course, there's also more specific kinds of ontologies where, like, people literally list out, like, you know, like, rights, roles, I don't know, like, tokens, like economics, like constitutional amendments. Like, there's different, like, sort of, like, very sort of, like, concrete ontologies that people had built to sort of classify these different organizational structures as well as economic structures. And do you engage with any specific one of these ontologies? Just curious.

Yeah, please.

Just a short addition. I'll keep it short because I'm kind of jumping in. But, like, to the practical question of, like, what have you done between the sort of different design cultures between organization and economy, which one, by the way, I would agree with. There are fields actually that one can use to at least experiment or find forms where the division is not that large, and I'll give an example. Board games. Board games, first of all, actually can be broken into this kind of rights. I haven't found a board game that you couldn't actually completely analyze fully analyze by this model. But the point structures in board games tick almost every box of a token structure. The only difference is that there is an order of magnitude more different models of points in board games than we have, at least currently, in token mode. But board games are also about people organizing together and so on. And this might be their beacon point, but then even if you add role playing games, which are much more about that, you have a field that is not, like, one to one. You cannot directly use this. But that gives you, hey. What about this form? There is no token form like this. What about this organization form? What about this decision form? And on all of that, it's raw material, potentially tailorable. And that's one direction we are systematically exploring.

K. Thank you. Maren?

Nick, you'll wanna unmute.

Sorry about that. Let's bring in some others. James, can you articulate your your question from way back?

My comment wasn't on programming languages.

It was yeah. Actually, so the comment I was making was differentiating particular encoding of of the right or the concept of ownership as a as a decomposed constellation of rights and the language you use to describe it. So, like, if you use Pistor, which we've been talking about, like, you could describe the notion of ownership using that ontology, and then you could say this is what ownership is. But when you write it in code, then you are actually not just describing it, you're declaring it, or you're making that what that means. And so what I was asking actually or kind of framing in the context of Exa was the difference between saying, this is what ownership means and saying, this is the language for describing what ownership is, so we could change it if it's not working out for us.

No. That that is a great point. I completely agree. This was kind of I shortly referred to it, but way too shortly to actually probably come out of the phrasing so that we think of the expressions that we currently have as projections. And by that concept, we mean that there is probably no this is the right way of coding. And there are certain reasons why such an approach, I think, is ultimately stronger. And, of course, it's not beside of actually going coding structures. It's more pointing towards, let's say, the practicality if I were to design an organization. And that organization would not be just in code, but it would have real world contacts, etcetera. There is a lot even in rights, even when I break down ownership that is is going to be fussy in the structures. And for those situations, I actually need a higher up, let's say, the kind of pursuit, the definition of what does this particular right want to do. Like, what is the principle what it wants to put this in this area, which is then going to be broken down, not just what happens in the organization, but when it kind of, let's say, ends up working with some law of a particular nation, what does the organization want to guide its principles again? And you need a higher expression to that. If you would try to kinda code everything down there, down to the last nail, you would probably fail that project anyway. So in this sense, this area is important, and having actually, expression forms for different levels is important, design wise and even communication wise, for people to understand the organization.

Seth, do you wanna

Yeah. So, the longer I've been involved, both on the on the kind of practice side, and and especially on the theory side, the the of studying communities and and and how how to build them to do a specific thing, the more I'm personally kinda coming out on a sort of that it's a fundamentally empirical process that, it's really tied in to what's happening on the ground, and it seems to favor some kind of, a lot of attention to how the organization changes and in order to support really kind of high rate, high feedback sort of flexibility. And that empirical so I'm hearing you I'm hearing more of a theory driven approach, you know, Mark, Hayek, Kean's, but also blockchain. Blockchain, you know, of course, it's code. It can be made to do anything. But what stands out about it is it's sort of a theory first approach. You you try to get things, you know, 95% right. Maybe with other theory first approaches, you try to get them 80% right on the ground. And so because it's so static and preformulated upfront, not that it's not possible to do a sort of more adaptive, flexible, data driven design process, but just that it seems kinda like eating soup with a fork. It's just not the the the tool I would use use for that. Would you say that I'm a little too focused on the need for kinda empirical hands dirty on the ground approach? Is are are you kinda inclined to double down on on the power of theory to kinda get it mostly right all in your head before before or, am I missing something? One one thing I don't want in an answer is gonna be that our theory first approach is that change is great without being able to I didn't see too much of that in the presentation. So I'd I'd wanna want that fleshed out if that's the defense. Thank you.

But but one key aspect is I can I think hidden in the word culture because I do think we are dealing with culture or cultures? We're dealing with maybe a culture of organizations that is growing to be more creative. We're certainly dealing with culture of economy that is integrating the possibility to be creative with economy, which has been cut out of our culture for for a significant amount, that any culture is not only theoretical. It's not only empirical. It is rather many, many different forms of expression and forms of experimentation together, and that is how culture develops. And then do you think then for this reason, I I would agree that currently this is theoretical. I'm hoping, for example, the projects in Berlin of building these sort of spaces for three weeks, etcetera, at least start to compensate and build the this experimental, which I think we do need. But I do think we need the theoretical in combination and and potentially other forms in between even artists.

Great. Great. Thanks very much. I'd like to make room for Divya before we lose her or both Divya's.

Do could you answer Tess's question? Tess, do you wanna just raise that?

Oh, yeah. I just have heard a few times people mention, like, the projects in Berlin are kind of, like, doing some experiments and we hope they pan out. But I had missed, like, which projects are the are the projects in Berlin? And I'm also in Berlin, so I'm I have a personal interest in this as well.

No. No. You you caught us. Yes. That's one thing we should also provide detail for. There's just too many things for details. But but shortly. So we have been collaborating with, for example, a place called Supermarket, which is an arts organization, but also known for actually working in new economy for ten years or so or close to a new organization and with different partners. And and they recently kind of started to organize the next MoneyLap, which is an organization. But not just to that, but beyond that, we have started to talk that we want to form some kind of art of organization direction in Berlin. And and, like, nothing massive at the beginning, but this starting from this idea that, actually, this is an art form, but including not just the questions of irresponsibility, but also certain analytics of the form and start to find first people interested, forming a group around that, and then allowing enabling pro projects by, for example, from the spaces that many of these organizations have, which other than than rather than becoming, say, a gallery, they could become an economic space for, say, two weeks and and building projects like this. This is the this is still kind of early days, especially also with COVID. Like, otherwise, you would have seen this in action this year. Now won't know. But it's in plans for the next year, maybe late spring, depending on, you know, how things open in this closed down city. But you're completely welcome. Like, give your information and or we can probably get your information that if you're interested, you're completely welcome to be aware and join whenever something happens.

Yeah. I'd love to be on, I guess, like, your mailing list or whatever.

Cool. Yeah. That's the extent for now.

I just wanna we should wrap up, but but I I do wanna bring in a couple voices that we haven't heard. Let's see. Jesse, are you there? I don't see you if you wanted to voice or or Carter.

And, Carter, do you wanna just follow-up, with what your your your response there, and then we'll wrap up?

Carter doesn't have a mic.

Maybe oh, that's right. Of course. Okay. Thank you. So let's those of us who do have mics, let's get ready to thank our speakers once again for round two. In three, two, one, unmute.

Thanks, everyone.

Alright. Thank you so much. Be well. And and and for those of you who who are in The US, have a happy Thanksgiving. We're going to we have a, I think, two more, seminar meetings, before we take a couple weeks off for the, for the end of the of the year and we'll start up again in January. Thanks very much. See you soon.

Nathan, stay on for a sec. Looks like we have, some kind of abuse thing going on.