Cool. Yeah. I I guess I can just dive into it. The the token oh, I got and I can share screen. Right? The token engineering commons is a great Twitter account to follow, I guess, because that's the first screen that I'm putting into. But no, actually, I wanna dive into, like, the mission vision values to start. The the goal is to really change the way we consider like, in the end, the goal of the common stack and give it and really my goal is to build abundance economics, to build an economic solutions for funding public goods. We are really good as a society around collaborating around scarce resources, like, really good. You know? I mean, we didn't have to pay any taxes to get a cell phone in our hand, really. You know? There is a there's a really, really good with business models, we can create systems that reward value creation as long as you're satisfying individual wants and needs. But the common stack and giveth and and really my goals are to find ways that we can reward value creation in in for societal goods, For goods that don't necessarily satisfy individual wants and needs, they satisfy collective needs. And the current solutions are focused around, you know, how do we are are are focused around governments and nonprofits. But nonprofits rely on sacrifice and governments rely on taxes. And I just think it's silly that we should have to pay taxes to provide value. Right? Why why should governments have to why should we have to you know, it doesn't make sense. Government the people who are building collective resources should be rewarded for their work without these weird, poorly, I would argue, like, poorly constructed and incentivized, dynamics. And so the token engineering commons and gardens as a is a as a design pattern in general is really focused on taking that approach taking another approach, like a third way around satisfying collective needs of society, and it's through economics and creating an economy that actually rewards value production for public goods or common pool resources. So the token engineering commons is one instance of a gardens that's doing that, and it's a microeconomy specifically. It's not in it's intended to be very niche, which you can see as by by, like, the fact that it's the token engineering commons. It's a it's an economy that's designed to provide public goods for token engineers and and educational opportunities for aspiring token engineers. Our goal our vision is to really create a safe and ethical, like, to really support the the creation of ethical, safe, and resilient economic systems that create benefit for society. And, our goal is kind of to be similar to the I triple e, almost like an engineering society for token engineers, but with an economy supporting it instead of being more of a it's a membership organization but one that where we reward participation. And we we believe we are set to be a shelling point for token engineering and create a a social layer that will really pull the token engineers out of their silos and allow them to share information and advance this nascent field of study further than would happen without some kind of economic force behind it. We're very human centered. You know, token engineering is generally considered like it feels very technical on things, but actually, in my opinion, there's a lot economics is a social science, and there's a lot of other pieces to it besides just like, oh, the bonding curve does this and blah blah blah. Right? It's like, well, how do we how do we resolve conflicts? How do we allow for bottom up decision making on a social level? And these these sorts of we we are big fans of Eleanor Ostrom's principles. So and and making sure we satisfy each one of those. So, that's kind of, what what the token engineering commons is aspiring to do, and we pick gardens as a base layer because of conviction voting. Conviction voting is a design pattern that Zargam got to had a huge piece in actually creating where what which allows parallel paths to be pursued in a in a very dynamic community driven way. So you don't have to instead of voting on financial decisions with yes, no decisions, like normal, like 51% decision make voting, We have conviction voting which allows for anyone to create a proposal. And based off of how much money they're asking for, that sets a requirement of how much can how much voting power needs to be set behind that proposal. So anyone with tokens can come around and look at the different proposals that are up there and allocate their tokens. It feels more like donating on a donation platform than voting, honestly, when it's when it's really up and running because there's no no voting. It's really just like there are, there is a scarcity of tokens and there's a scarcity of resources. And so we combine those those, scarcities into a a a more of a signal aggregation pattern that says, how quickly and how fast different proposals will be, will be funded. It's a very cool dynamic, and it really, I think it has the best chance of finding the voter apathy issues that we often see in the crypto space. And the the biggest challenge with it is it's complicated. And one of the things that we're really excited about is this idea of collective economics sorry, collaborative economics. The concept of collaborative economics, I think, is really what I wanna highlight to this crew because if you think about it, economics has sort of a monarchy style approach. Currently, if you're designing an economy, you go to a backroom and you and you grab a couple of really smart people, and you do a great job of designing the economy that you think will work given the requirements that you that you see. And then you pass that down to people. Right? You know, even in in our in our global world, in our normal world, you know, we have these various economic systems. No one votes on the the changing the interest rates. Right? Like, the Federal Reserve just does it. Even in crypto, crypto is great because at least you're not imposing an economy on people that are stuck in a location. At least people are opting into it. But who voted for ten minute block times in in Bitcoin? Who voted for 32 ether to stake on a on a Ethereum? I don't remember that vote, and I'm deep in the Ethereum space. So I don't think there was one. It's it's not we have, economic monarchies, and that's all we have. And there's this idea that people are too dumb to design their own economies. But I would say that's the same thing as people are too dumb to govern their own shared resources. And democracy seems to be working okay. You know? I I think that we can also bring some of those ideas into economics because economics like, really, what's more important, managing the currency of a nation or managing the government of a nation? I I would wonder. I wonder. Right? And so the problem is, of course, with any economy, it's a complex system. So its initialization is very important. So in crypto, we have, like, gardens, for instance, with OneHive. Garden OneHive created gardens, and they use it for their own governance. They initialized it in a backroom, but it's actually governed by the community once it's launched. So I'm not gonna say that this collaborative economics doesn't already exist. Many DAOs and many many organizations in the crypto space do have collaborative economics, but not at launch. The nerds get in the back rooms. They say how it's gonna be, and then they launch it. But these initial conditions are so critical, and I think it gives a huge opportunity to actually design. And when you when you get get the community involved, you have a huge opportunity to actually bring and educate take an opportunity to educate the masses, the people who are interested, the people with skin in the game, have an opportunity to educate them about how the economy works, and then collaborative economics can really start and really come in full force. Because right now, I feel like the economies in crypto that are being collaboratively governed, it's still like you start with the technocracy and you end up continuing the technocratic pattern. You know, it's like, what does Vitalik think? 32? Okay. We're good. So you have to start from a a collective approach in my opinion. And the token engineering commons, I believe, is the first organization to ever try. So we're we call this collaborative economics. We already did a first round of it with the hatch where we raised $1,500,000. So there's actually a $1,500,000 sitting in a DAO that was collectively designed by the community that that put it there. And now with that $1,500,000, we we had to break up the launch into two pieces because we're building a relatively complex economy. And having the amount of money that we have to design for is a huge weight off of our shoulders and allows us to create better designs. So now that we have these funds, we have this next process which is just getting started. It's gonna last about three weeks. We might extend it if we're just having too good of a time. Then and we're actually going to design where does this $1,500,000 go. And this is the dashboard that we're gonna use to collectively and iteratively create that economic design. You know, we gotta have the good memes, our economy, our choice. And we are this this dashboard is broken up into four different pieces. Module one is about the how do we transition from this hat token hash token holders? And then, like, what are the what's the opening price? The opening price for the hash was $1. Everyone who wanted who was part of the trusted seed of the of of the system could put in $1 and get one token. But now we get to pick the price after the price that goes for the bonding curve.

fact, that's the next section is the economic engine, which we're using a bonding curve because we would like this to be a micro economy. Z, is everyone here pretty familiar with bonding curves?

Yeah. And I can set a link to this actually right in the chat. So that goes straight to this to this page that I'm on, but, of course, you can delete intro on too and go to the the the starting page. But, basically, there's a bonding curve, which is our economic engine, and there's the the the I call it God mode. It's DAO voting. It's like the the DAO that actually controls the entire system and has one decision making process. And then we have, how do you distribute funds which has its own decision making process. And so, you know, to have a kind of a democratic process, we need to have educational material. And, you know, it's like, please take fifteen minutes to read this thing. They won't, but that's okay. You know, at least we tried. And we even made it so that you can just listen. Lauren read read this blog post. It's like we really just want this information to get into people's heads however we can. So even, like, made it an audio version. But we we explain each parameter in-depth, and also we have forum posts where people can discuss discuss the concepts and interact with the idea of each parameter that they have to decide on. It's a very interactive process. And then so we describe each one and there's all these forum posts and no one reads it, but that's okay. They get to here and then they have no clue what's going on. So then they go to learn more and they go back to that learning module. And this first section is about the token, basically the vesting. People are going to choose their own vesting requirements alongside how much profit effectively they get by participating in this system as as early arrivals. But, of course, they won't see that profit until their vesting is done. So they that's why we put the two together in the same module. Then this is the bonding curve, and they can really they can add steps to explore the bonding curve so they can see what happens if someone buys $100,000 you know, it adds that step to the bonding curve and is explored in this table down here. And you can see how the how you can go up and down the bonding curve. You can when you're in this path, you have to decide like how much money goes to the to the bonding curve, which is the economic arm and how much money goes to the the value creation arm. And at the beginning and then also, like, there's effectively built in taxes, which we call tributes, like a it's a Tobin tax and an entry tax that will anytime people buy or sell into the economy, how much how much goes into the value creation side and how much goes into the economic side. And then this is the god mode version. This is where, like, this DAO, this community can collectively change the parameters and evolve with the external circumstances. So it's always very upgradable. It's not like Bitcoin stuck on 10 blocks, ten minute block times and and one megabyte block sizes. You know, this we're we're a micro economy. We need to be more agile, and we need to take feedback from our community and evolve as a community. So everything is modifiable through over time. And and then also this is the conviction voting side of it where it's like, how long does it take for your voting power to accumulate? And what's really cool is that when we're doing these these systems, right, when we're doing the these, we have these param parties. So, like, designing this, it's a little complicated. I can't just give you a five minute explainer and then it's like, oh, hey. Guess what? You got it. But we're a community, and so we design it together. We have these param parties, which are really fun. We put on some music. We spend, like you know, I give maybe a ten minute intro or whoever's hosting gives maybe a ten minute intro about it for the new people if there's new people there. Otherwise, we just, like, go heads down and listen to music and put together, like, ten ten to half ten minutes to half an hour of, like, you know, working on a proposal. And then we spend the last half of the prime party actually proposing our proposals. Like, this is how I would do the economy. This is how I would do the economy. And then, you know, little cops. Right? Oh, very nice economy. You know? And we keep it fun because if it's not fun, is it even worth doing? Right? And then and then we will actually have a little time for debate and challenge the person and try to you're like, well, why'd you do that? You know? Like, I don't know. You know? I you know? And and, eventually, what's really weird is this becomes a political process, and people end up having, you know, falling on one end of a political line, and and it becomes political debates. There are people who are, like, you know, pro high entry tributes and exit tributes. There are people who are pro you know, who are ants, you know, pro pro pro low taxes or whatever, you know, and you end up having these very political discussions. But you also end up with a lot of innovation. The the Nate Nate Suits, who is a geologist by trade and works for the government, and, like, just as, like, almost like a bureaucrat. He's also a member of our community. He came up with this proposal, which is really interesting. It was actually point eight and forty two days of conviction growth. And it's like, what? Forty two days of conviction growth? It's gonna take three months. So with conviction growth means that it will take this is the half life of, like, your voting power to grow. So it will take forty two days to have half of your total voting power. It'll take about three months to have 75% of your total voting power. Right? But this curve looks fantastic. Like, most people were coming in with a very similar looking curve. Right? Let's go with, like, seven. You know, it looks pretty similar, but over time, it it doesn't change that much. But with his design, over time, it actually changes a lot. It flattens out, which is really nice, and it's a really nice dynamic. It allows people with very few tokens to wait some amount of time to actually pass small proposals, which wasn't really possible with other designs. And and these things that we've only been doing three days of param parties. You know, the there's this emergence of novelty in economic design is a and in an open economic design pattern and creation process is going to create a lot of opportunity. And so we're very excited about it. And the the real opportunity here is that when someone creates a design pattern, a configuration, right, they they then we by the way, so we had to trim down the the the main parameters into the, like, the the real meaty ones that can have a lot of impact, but we have an advanced settings thing where people can change all of the parameters that exist. But most of them are a little complicated to explain and have weird impacts that most people probably don't want. So we have a whole discussion on the forums about, like, why these defaults were chosen and the defaults were chosen by the community and the importance of the impact of defaults, of course. Right? But they're all configurable. And so if people disagree with any of those defaults, they can go and change them. But to keep it easy for people, you know, this is this is this is the version of the commons orogeny, which is a geologic geological term because he's a geologist. Right? And you he can I I came through and I actually forked his proposal, and I changed some parameters because I some of them were a little wild? The I thought the conviction voting was genius, but I wanted to tweak some of the other ones. So I'm gonna submit it as common origin fork. And and now I'm gonna submit the proposal. And this is how we iteratively design. So that becomes a GitHub issue. And and and here in this GitHub issue, we the different parameters. It's actually still we're still kinda beta testing. There's a few things that are broken in this GitHub issue, so I'm not gonna dive into it. But people can read these GitHub issues as unique proposals. And then if they like them, they can go and fork them. And that fork will import the parameters into the dashboard, and then you'll have the parameters set that that person proposed. And you can go through and just tweak and add your political flavor, the things that you think are really important. This this proposal was awesome, except I think the the the community, the hatchers need more profit. So I'm just gonna change the opening price because that's that's the parameter I care about. You know? And and so then you can propose that. And in this way, we can collaboratively and iteratively design this economic this very complex economic system, and anyone can participate. But only the people who actually have skin in the game from participating in the hatch, which was a a trusted group of people, can actually vote on which where the $1,500,000 that they put in can will actually go. So it's just yeah.

Yeah, so we had as as Zee said that we actually curate who can participate, we make sure that peep we the common stack has this trusted seed community group that only value aligned and value driven people can join. So everyone who applies, we actually go and look at their Twitter and we look at their stuff and it's like, oh this is just an airdrop seeker, you know, denied. Right? This is someone who's very focused on profit, and that's it. But if if they have a mix, that's okay. You know, if they're if it's like, oh, no. This person, they're focused on profits. They they're a bit of a degen, but they also care about Gitcoin, and they care about these other movements, other more altruistic things, then they can participate. And so we have this trusted c token, which is the c stack score. It's not it's more of a score. It's a non transferable reputation token. It's barely a token. Honestly, it's a score. It's a trust score. And then they also and then we also had people who were participating in the construction of the TEC and they had impact hours. And so we had a fifty fifty split of these two tokens, impact hour tokens, people put in labor, and then, the trusted seed, the people who are allowed to put in capital. And, they they then could vote quadratically on the proposals that were being proposed for the initial phase of the of the economy which was the hatch. And and then and we use quadratic voting with this two token system to decide the top the top proposals and and then we had to actually have a committee to just make sure that there weren't any proposals that were forked that were competing for votes that this is also a Zargam idea hat tip to Z to make sure that there was not, like, you know, the sixth, seventh and eighth of, you know, highest voted groups were actually forks of each other and so and this actually did happen. We elevated one that was like, there were a lot of forks of, it was called Goldilocks and the Goldilocks v four, was the was the most popular one of the Goldilocks series that were splitting votes. And so that one actually made it into the final four that the community then voted on again with quadratic voting and and token log, and, with the two token system around with just the top four. And then that Goldilocks, which wouldn't have made it otherwise, actually, wouldn't have made the cut, was the one that won. And, of course, we didn't call it Goldilocks for the final vote, but memes are important. Right? So, the the Goldilocks v four ended up winning and being the hatch design. For this one, for these parameters, we're doing it slightly different. We will still use token log and quadratic voting, but it will be with the TC hatch tokens, the people who have skin in the game, the people who put in labor or capital to initialize this economy. They got TCH tokens, the hash tokens. And we will use quadratic voting again and token log to whittle down to four choices, three to five choices. And then but then we will use snapshot and ranked choice voting the to to choose the final economy out of those last the last set. And then when those economic parameters are set, then we'll actually deploy the instance of the gardens. So we will deploy a gardens module just like this, but we will replace the issuance model that gardens usually comes with with a bonding curve and set the parameters as were proposed and and selected by the community. And then we will migrate the funds from the hatch DAO that exists on the xDai chain and split and send them to the the gardens and and it upgraded to a commons, which is what we call a gardens with a bonding curve. And then that will, that economy will launch and we will be in full swing and the goal will be to advance token engineering the best that we can.

Well, the the it all was very organic, honestly. We we are the cool so the common stack is trying to design this repeatable pattern, and the token engineering commons is instance of that pattern, the pilot instance. And this this repeatable pattern, you know, we're very lucky happy to have the token engineering commons be our pilot project because, honestly, like, the token engineering commons could have probably been launched a year ago. If me, z, and a couple other token engineers got into a backroom, designed the economy ourselves, and then just launched this thing without so much conversation and community building and and and all of that work, we could have had an economy. And we could have started something and it could have been cool. But we're taking this really slow approach because we don't know where we're going. It's a very complex system, and and it's like this one thing after another. And so, you know, just looking it it really emerged out of, just following the values of Elmer Ostrom and and saying, well, participatory decision making is vital. We need to make sure that the the people are involved in the the the construction of the economy, and the only way to do that is through parties. You know? It's through actually collaborating and and having having some conversations so people can learn a little bit faster. Just looking at documentation and tooling is boring and not very fun, not very engaging.

No one would participate unless we gave them space.

Yeah. Specifically, there was this praise debate. So the the hatch parameters had a very clear, design pattern and and, like like, decision making process. Right? And so when we when we had the hatch debates and and one project one or one result was was chosen, everyone's like, well, the decision was legitimate. But there was also the decision of how do we accumulate the labor capital. And we use this praise system to do that where, dish praise to anybody else. So I praise Zargon for coming up with some really cool ideas that the token engineering community ran with. Right? And then and then we quantify that, and then it becomes you get impact hours. But that decision was made, almost a year before the launch, of how those was accumulate. And every two weeks, there was a a, like, hey. This is happening. You know? There's an update. These are the impact hours that were rewarded every two weeks. But then, like, when he said, when the rubber hit the road, a decision that was made a long time ago by different people, then who are involved at the current moment, that needed to be reassessed. And I think this is also just a really interesting opportunity or dynamic because, like, there was a very close vote there. We ended up using the same design pattern decision making process using token log and voting. How should should we modify the praise system and the praise results? And we had, you know, there were no intervention. Like, no. It should be the same. And then there was another one that says that was called Praise McGennon. That was like, we should rewrite it completely. And it was 41 a 5149% split.

Instead of The UK, luckily, when we said the decision making process, we have a polarity clause so that if there is a decision if the results are have the have, like, a strong polarity, If there's two results that are really that are close in votes, it doesn't just go to the guy who beat beat it by a fraction. Actually, the the the vote is called off, and those two proposals need need a compromise. And that was part of the making process. So then, the people who I was one of the first people who is involved in this. So me and the other person who made a proposal actually, had to create a compromise proposal, and then that was what we went with. And so instead of the classic, you know, like, let's break the community into two equal parts and one side wins, let's let's take that as an opportunity to build compromise, which it

Hi. I wanna say I really appreciate the messiness of the design in the sense of using a lot of tools, making you know, one tool does one job right. Use all of them. Don't get ideological. Be pragmatic. The incremental approach. I'm yeah. I'm really grateful. This is very in line, certainly with my kind where I'm coming at, on on how institution. And, of course, the inevitable downside of of any of this is unintended consequences. And it seems with main criminal approach, in a way, you get more.

Between different subsystems.

Seth, Seth, we lost you at with an intimate incremental approach in a way you get more of, and then you just broke off.

Got it. Got it. And then how about now?

Yeah. That's great.

Okay. I just wanna know, are there, any fun unintended consequences that you've kind of seen occurring between the subsystems that you're able to nip in the bud or kind of accommodate because of this incremental approach?

Well, yeah, there I mean, there are an example of one. There's a lot. There's a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. An example of one Juicy.

In a

hatch, there was there was a a of a parameter that's like, how much should it cost to create a proposal? And when you create a proposal, you know, it's like, it's kind of annoying. Everyone has to look at it. And is it good? Is it bad? And so there needs there needed to be, you know, a blocker for creating proposals. And and so someone was like, yeah. But, actually, this could be a feature. This is an opportunity to advertise to all these token engineers and, like, the people in this community. So maybe and and, actually, this this, like, proposal deposit, we call it a toll gate fee because it's not a deposit. You don't get it back as a fee. So we actually had a a troll a troll rate. Right? And so, like, the actually, there's a there's a cost to the the big problem with the proposal is that with our current hatch, you can only do one proposal at a time. So if you make a proposal, then that delays everyone else from making a proposal for a certain amount of time. And so there are these two parameters, the hours between people can that people can make proposals, between each other and the the fee. Right? And so that you could effectively turn that into a dollars per hour, and that became an advertising opportunity. And and so that was actually part of the hatch debates was talking about this emergent feature of, like, well, people could advertise to our community using this method by paying this rate. What is the dollars per hour? You know? Yeah. And and but there's a bunch of them, man. I mean, there's so many there's so many weird emergent properties that come with a deep analyzing deeply a complex system like this.

K. No. I imagine that's why I asked that, and that's very gratifying to hear.

I I think it really depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to create another DeFi casino, you know like jump in there and quickly launch you know make the Ponzi game and roll on out when you're done right. What what I'm really excited about is, you know, challenging the way that humans coordinate around collective goods and, like, public goods. And public infrastructure is hard to change and we I wanna I would like to create public infrastructure. So I come with a background of chemical engineering. I'm a chemical engineer. I was designing power plants back in the day. Right? And we would spend years designing that system because it was important and hard to change before. And this approach of launching quickly, it loses the cultural build. And so, like, part of the economics, the success of an economy is, like, having, like, a resilient culture and a community of people that have shared understanding and common knowledge between them and can like explore the the solution space together. Right? And that's that's what we really spent most of the time on. Well, there are two things. We spent a lot of time on doing the, like, actual building of all of this stuff. Uh-huh. Like, the smart contracts, you think the dashboard's complicated. Okay? Like, the solidity and and the infrastructure and the UX to make all this usable is also took a lot of time to to build. But and during that time, we took advantage to build a cultural build a culture. And that I think is the that where really a lot of the time was spent. And I don't think that you can build a good culture in less than three months. I just don't think it's possible. It just takes time for people to sink in. And the participatory economic stuff will take about a month, maybe two, you know, somewhere in that range. So I I think if you're willing to spend five months, you could kind of speed through the process that we believe it takes to create a comments. It doesn't have to take a year, but I think that depending on the economy's purpose, there can be a lot of success with a faster backroom approach, But within public good space, if we wanna actually create value for society, we need to listen to the people the stakeholders. And and I don't think that you can do that with a backroom approach effectively. I think that that like, Elinor Ostrom has a great quote that's like, bureaucrats and government officials, no matter how well meaning, can are not as well suited to make decisions as the people on the ground that have the most incentive to get the solution right. I think I butchered the quote a little bit, but I would also add technocrats, you know, or, like like, the the government politicians, bureaucrats, and government officials, and technocrats, they we can do all we want, but in the end, the people on the ground, the people who are actually involved, they're the ones who have the incentive to get the decisions right. And I I think that collaborative economics will succeed over speeding it up.

Yeah. I did. So this is first off. Thanks. This has been a really great presentation. I really enjoyed seeing this. The question I had was you have a lot of, moving parts here sort of technically, and I understand that the target right now is a fairly technical community. And so I see that as being okay. How do you see some of this community participation goal? How do you see that scaling whenever the target audience is not as technical? You know, I can't, I'm not, gonna, if I want to understand how this user interface works, I'm not gonna be able to go in and like, look at the JavaScript code. So I'm not at that level. So what how do you see the scaling to to nontechnical users and communities?

Time. Time and iterations. We are, the the strategy of the common stack. So, like, the token engineering commons is the common stack's first pilot project. Right? And our goal is to make it so that people can create a micro economy around protecting a river, around helping the homeless in a community. It's gonna take some time. We're not anywhere near like, they'll the the requirements after not only this economic design process, right, but you have to use MetaMask on xDai to vote on a Web three application. What was any of that? Did that make sense? No. I didn't think so. Okay. Cool. So, like, our our focus now is public goods as Ethereum community calls them. Right? It's the it's the the idea of, like, oh, we can get some, like, Ethereum two point o client teams to collaborate around, you know, providing value for a community. We can get token in we can advance token engineering, right, in these complex research things. So we're gonna focus on just making these patterns work and realize why they don't work in in the in that, like, nerd space. And then, actually, I have another project called Giveth that's actually going the other direction. So the common stack is really focused on building solutions for the nerds of the nerds that address the problem directly. Giveth is a donation platform that's been around since 2016, building solutions in the in the Ethereum space, and we're going directly to the nonprofits. And we're saying, oh, yeah. Donations. I mean, it's a donation platform. We're taking a platform approach where someone can come in and get a MetaMask address oh, not a MetaMask. They get they log in with Google and get an Ethereum address, and then they can start raising money for their nonprofit. And then with that once they they start there, it's like, hey. Look. You're doing everything the same with one little change. You have an Ethereum address you got with your Google account. Right? Okay. Cool. You're it's Indiegogo, but for with crypto. Easy. Right? Then, like, they raised a thousand dollars, and we send them a message. Like, did you know Google can steal your money? Like, it's your Google login. You know, maybe you wanna try this MetaMask thing. Here's, like, a little explainer. One step at a time, we escalate it. And Giveth is gonna have a token soon that is used for, the for collective governance over the donation platform for donors. Right? So when you donate to a project, instead of getting a tax deduction, right, you actually get a token following the same model people are used to, and it's, like, kind of like donation money. And so you'll donate to projects and then you get this governance token, which actually allows you to use gardens for using gardens to, you know, decide the future of building the future of giving, so what we call it. And then with that token, you can actually you'll be able to stake behind projects. The projects that have more tokens staked behind them will get the donors will get more tokens back. Right? It's like a project with a lot of give token staked might get a 30%, reimbursement in tokens for their donations. A project with very little token stake might get, like, a 10% reimbursement for that donation. Right? And then, what we wanna do is actually, we with these give tokens, we can say, hey, nonprofits. People can actually support you without sacrifice. They can just stake their tokens behind you, and that will support you directly, but without anyone needing to sacrifice. And because that's the key. How do we remove sacrifice from the from the equation? And so then if there's enough giveth give tokens staked behind a project, we'll actually initialize a bonding curve for that project. And then the project will get a bunch of free tokens. The people who staked behind that project will actually also get tokens in that project, and we'll initialize an economy for that nonprofit community. So with Giveth, we're taking this other approach, building a slippery slope for the nonprofit builders to like, that are really on the ground solving the problems that take one step at a time and improve and and to the point where they they slip into their own economic solution. And so it's like Griff,

Absolutely. It's a it's a progression, and it's a it's an opt in all the way. And it's also a curation model in itself because there will be, like, successful nonprofits. We'll we'll only we'll be the only ones. Like, you'll have to have a certain amount of gift tokens staked behind you from a certain number of people. Like, it's not like it's like everyone gets a bonding curve if they want it. You have to be it's a collective decision process itself. And so you will have had to be successful in the giveth crypto scene. You know? So it'll yeah.

Exactly.

You know, what's cool is you can bootstrap a lot of this stuff with with magic, Internet money. You know? So, like, in the end, you can gamify the process and reward the people who are participating with future tokens in the source cred style, like, approach with labor. Right? And so you can you can bootstrap it, you know, relatively cheaply because there's a promise of future rewards. Right? And this is just like a start up with with stock. Effectively, what we're doing is we're taking the tech start up model, the the VC tech start up model, but we're we're using it for for a much more noble purpose, which is to create, like, public goods focused economies. So you the people who work in a start up might not get paid at all, but they're kicking ass because they have this, you know, future imaginary stock. And and so I think that this can be done cheaply. It's designed to be able to be done cheaply.

I think that with a team of eight, you could pull off all the organizing force. But again, you know, the purpose of this kind of economy is actually to not be one organization as much as it is to be a coordination tool between multiple organizations. So there's like a collective pool of of of funding that's going to the organize to a collective of organizations that normally would be competing in a way. Right? You can imagine, like, the token engineering commons, for instance, will have lots of different crypto orgs that think that their token engineering projects need more modeling or that their their their solution token spice or CADCAD, which gets the funding. Right? Well, now they all have one token that they have to, like, collectively, that that brings them together. Right? It's the same way it does in Bitcoin. Like, we're we're taking tribalism and making it an opportunity to actually collaborate stronger together. Right? Because they all have now a shared individual incentive. So, like, that team

Yeah. And and and that so that team of seven is more like community managers that are real that would then be recruiting people who would want to participate in this system. This is why it's, like, three months of cultural build, three, you know, like, collecting people who are busy doing their own thing and trying to, like, make them care, you know, and having them give input as stakeholders and then participatory decision making and then launching and collecting money and then, like, you know, having I think a team could do it, just a team of staff.

Today, it would take a lot of hand holding, and it's not really I wouldn't say it's very feasible for for anyone to do it because every because we're gonna learn so much in the first launch that I would I just say, look. If you need a solution now, go somewhere else because, like or maybe just start with the gardens without the bonding curve and and try to go their path. But what I wanna create is make it super easy where you don't need that much development support. You know, one technically savvy person would be able to work with us and and hopefully a community of people that are trying to help people launch these things. Is that that's because that's the real goal. We have the trusted seats sitting there so that people have, like, some blockchain knowledge, people that they can like solicit to join their community and be participating in people who are value aligned with the mission that that that small group of people really wanna push forward. So the, you know, in two or three years, seven people, like, will be able to leave this community with no technical experience. In a year, probably you want a dev that's that's in your back pocket that's pretty good. You know? And in the next six months, if you work with me, we can make it happen. But that's that's probably the only way. And I would really wait. We're gonna learn so much about this design pattern when the tote after the token engineering commons plays with it for, you know, three months that it's almost I mean, everyone likes being on the bleeding edge, but, like, you know, it might be better just to wait a little.