Hashing It Out
Hashing It Out

Episode 102 · 1 year ago

Hashing It Out #102: Griff Green

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

On this Epiosde Dr.Corey Petty interviews Griff Green about incentvizing a better world thru community building and technology.

Social Media: Griff Green

Twitter:https://twitter.com/thegriff

Github:https://github.com/GriffGreen

Medium:https://medium.com/@thegrifft

Linkedin:https://ch.linkedin.com/in/griffgreen

Website: https://commonsstack.org/  

Welcome to hashing it out, a podcast where we talked to the tech innovators behind blocked in infrastructure and decentralized networks. We dive into the weeds to get at why and how people build this technology the problems they face along the way. Come listen and learn from the best in the business so you can join their ranks. Hello everyone, welcome back to hashing it out, episode one hundred and two. I'm your host, Dr Frey Petty. We may have one jump in later on down a line if they feel they want to, but for now it's just me and we got griff green with us today. So, Griff, it's been a long time since we chatted. Tell us who you are, what you've been up to, what you're doing? Sure, yeah, so I'm green. I've been in the theorem space for a long time. I was community manager for the Tao. I am I have a master's degree in digital currencies from way back in the day, like twenty six, three, one right. Yeah, first person ever get a degree in digital currency in a group of nine, and I'm kind of a serial nonprofit crypto founder, like crypto nonprofit founder Giveth, dotnode and common stack are the most well known projects that I work with and that and the ones that I put most of my time and also an advisor for a bunch of projects by it down most recently and right ID and I don't know, I didn't three and Hermes and a whole bunch of other projects going to be a Geit coin steward. I really just anything that's doing public goods, like trying to use crypto to make the world a better place, like I'm and like that brings me to like what I think, to like these this is more like one of the, I guess, personal series that I've been doing lately with with hashing it out, if I just talked to one person and it's more about like who that person is and what they're doing. You are obviously a quality person to do this with and I'm starting those interviews out, like the episodes, out, with a question. What do you care about? Yeah, I care about you know, it's kind of a weird thing to say it this way, but it's audacious. I like being audacious. I want to end altruism and altruism. Yeah, I want to end altruism. I think I've I feel like society is exploiting the ultruists. We're not respecting the value that's being created by the people who are providing value for society and that it has to stop. It's not sustainable. Do you believe in altruism? I don't. Of course I believe. I believe people are naturally altruistic. I actually think the default economy that we're all born into is a gift ECOMOMY. Your mom doesn't charge you, you know, for breastfeeding, like you know, hey really possibilities. They're like. It's like, that's not altra so that's that's like you just you could argue that that's responsibility and fear of the consequences and love and a lot of other things, but altruism is is an interesting way to put it. Well, it's a I'm not saying that's altruism. I'm saying that the natural economy that people are born into is a gift economy. The family economy is you basically give to your family without expectations, and but there is some kind of expectation that if anyone was in need they would be able you would help them, you know, and that there's like a family unit and that we're all in it together and and that's held together and like items are exchanged through giving. There's not a lot of in one money gets into the equation actually kind of ruins the gift economy. Roumans family relationships, and so this is this is a because of the economy is in structure to handle money, and so the natural state, what we are born into, is the gift economy. A friend of mine the other day, like yesterday, actually actually in the optimist optimism office, they there are crows that are leaving. They are feeding the Craft Crows and the crow brought muscle Shell and left it on on Jing's balcony. Look, it's a culture of giving. Man This is like interspecies. This is kind of the default way that economics is. You feel great gratitude and then you get back, and so when people are really lucky in society, they feel in. Some ways they feel guilt, some ways they feel like they have a lot. So they want to give back right and it's just a natural feeling. And so I don't feel like altruism is a bad thing, but I don't like the idea of relying on it for any societal good. That's just ridiculous. Does the House made of cards? We basically, this is where governments have come into and and really exerted their force, because we do not respect people who provide value or society at large. We don't build systems that reward value...

...production for society. Let's think I'm trying to take out a part of little bit or like challenge you a little bit on it. Yeah, maybe is it. I'm first off, like I do think that whatever people would typically deem as altruism is taken advantage of by by the massive, and they're not that it makes it such that people who would like to live that way cannot live that way sustainably and that, you said, the introduction of economics and money in the most things usually ruins it because because of that, a balance like they're not paid commitser to the value they provide, because more often than not, what we value is like what people get paid for, is not the types of value that altruists are putting forward, and it's like that's so, if I restateed at that Appropri late is that we're trying to get rid of. Well, I'm trying to get what I so maybe getting rid of is the wrong direction to go. I don't want to get rid of anything. I want to create something new. I want to I want to make it right that cycle, that that we that that imbalance exists. Like, yeah, like an economy built on altruism is never going to work. Yet we find ourselves, particularly in the Crypto community, doing that quite a bit. Yeah, yeah, and I just I want to build. I'm excited about systems that reward value creation for society or for a large group of people, things that normally suffer from tragedy, the Commons issues or free rider problems, trying to create solutions that can avoid those things and and using economics, specifically crypto economics, and also a lot of learnings from the Commons, like research space, Eleanor Ostrom, the boilier and all these other Commons researchers taking their their lessons. Like, you know, the tragedy the Commons was disproven, or at least it was proven, it was studied and figured out how it could be overcome by Elanor Ostrom, and she wanted Nobel Prize and Economics in the s for her research, and we and and so applying this, you know, she solved, she cracked the tragedy of the Commons because she found out way she created just eight simple principles that we can follow to create sustainable infrastructure for, you know, Managing Common Pool Resources as a community in a relatively decentralized way. She like she really laid it out and it's just eight sentences. Like I can't recommend enough people go and check that out. And I just am excited about adding crypto economics as the ninth point there, right, and and actually being old. Why do you decrypt economics? What is crypt economic spirit to throw incentive alignment, rewarding. So she found a way for Commons to be managed appropriately, right, but she didn't find a way to actually reward the people who manage them. It's really a self governing system that she that will what she did is she did like a Meta Study on Commons that had existed for over a hundred years, multi generational. Like ecosystems, are communities that were managing shared a shared resource, whether it is a watershed or was like, you know, fishing in a bay to protect the fish or, you know, farming water of scarce resource and and like sustainable management of it. Yeah, forests and these sorts of things that are managed not by governments but managed by the communities that rely on them, right, and and so. And she only looked at ones that have survived over a hundred years, some of them for a thousand years, and she pulled out these eight principles from the successful ones and also looking at where they had major problems, where they almost went wrong, and like derive these a principles and now, but so that that's like, Oh, look, we can manage, but management is that's like sustainability, that's great, but I won't regenerability. I like the the these shared resources have value. We know they have value and in fact governing them specifically has value. And this is where cryptoeconomics gets really interesting in play, because you see all these governance tokens, right, like the government's, though, can unit UN he's token, like there's no derivative, like there's no you know that that fee isn't being applied yet, right. So, like, why does the unit swap token have value? You know? And it's like, oh, because governance overshared resources actually does have value. Why? Our presidential elections? You know, why are they like is spending billions of dollars to become president when you only get...

...paid for hundred K year? Because Governance overshared resources has value. So that's where I feel like we can really start applying economics to solve this Tragy, the Commons issue, solve this altruistic issue, because so like the big the bigger picture here is there are two types of economic goods. Or we can divide it by economic goods that are scrutable, which work great with our market economy. So think of a movie theater. You can charge tickets to write, selling DVD's. Right, these are excludable goods. Where do you buy excludable? scoutable from what you can. You can put a boundary around it and you can have a customer. You can charge people, right, you can exclude people from using them. So a movie in a park, for instance, provides just as much value, if not more value, than a movie in a movie theater. But you can't stop random people from coming in the park and enjoy the movie. And so the people who throw movies in the park, they can't sustain that right, they don't have their a business model that works. Because, well, you can have artipulated as well. You can't manipulate the the economics as well, because you had you you give up a portion of control over how it's consumed. Yeah, and and you can that the it's the control, exactly right. It's the fact that you're kind of just giving away. Open source code is another example. Right, but then there's a lot of open source licenses where you're taking something from a non excludable category, open source code, and MIT license. Anyone can use it, and then you're saying, actually, we're going to use the Apache license or some other license that if you're a large company, you know, now we can start excluding people. If you're a large company, you have to pay to use this software. You know, Oh, okay, now you just excluded somebody, so now you can charge them. Now you can have a business model. But the cool thing with crypto economics is you don't need a business model. Look at all the liquidity mining programs. Look at all of these other systems. Even a Theorem just regular mining. You can you can issue currency for the people that are providing value. I also maybe, if rephrase that, like you don't need a business model that's built on monetizing exclusion to a scarcity. Yeah, you need an economic model, but this is something I think about all day, every day. Like and I would agree with you I'm just trying to get to the bottom of, like what this differentiation is and how, potentially, you think it's kind of like it in the event that what you do and what you care about is successful, you create these communities where you have a different form of governance and underlying economic model and how people interact each other, what is the world look like in the event that that's wildly successful? Have like what is successful to that? Well, for me, success looks like compet competitive organizations that are very similar to the free market economy that we have for excludable goods, but for non excludable goods. So imagine if everything charities were doing they could actually profit from, right, and I could have a start up that's like trying to help orphans and or trying to clean a river or trying to build roads or trying to take care of the less fortune in society, right, and I could be competing against other for profit economies that are using an economic structure probably more like a doll than like your normal business company. Right, and these dolls are actually competing to provide public services. That's what it looks like. It looks like a stock exchange for charities. It looks like impact investing instead of donating every time, every time that you have something that you care about. If, instead of it looks like ending the requirement of sacrifice to provide value to society. These are now. I'm not saying that that shouldn't be allowed it. We just need a third way right now to to provide non excludable goods to society. We have two solutions. nonprofits, which rely on sacrifice and altruism all the way through. If you donate money, you're sacrificing. If you're working for a nonprofit, you usually take a pay cut, almost always, right in fact, it's almost culturally abhorrent to be paid your normal wage if you're working for a charity. The other option is governments,...

...and government's require taxes and threats to say hey, if you don't give me my money, I'll take your house. Kind of kind of an attitude. Right. So in that way it also relies on sacrifice. It relies on like control and weird, weird dynamics. Also, in both of these structures, making a good decision is not directly rewarded or incentivice right, like if a bureaucrat makes a good decision, he collects his salary. BUREACRAT makes bad decision, he collects his salary. At least in the nonprofit world, if they make a bad decision, they're held accountable to the grass roots, like funding that they're trying to pull. This is the Nice thing about nonprofits over government's. nonprofits are generally funded from the bottom up, whereas governments are are very top down. So, like, if we have to look at these two options that we have for providing value for society, you know, nonprofit orms of like where the money comes from. Right like you have to think about, like where the money comes from and thus how the structure is created based on distributing that money to the people involved. Then they look very differently, based on, like how the money is pooled and and distributed. There's much more accountability, much more but I think about this as I could have tried to like marry my thoughts about what I would like deem social crypto with what you're trying to say. And and I think about the concept of Social Crypto, it's like, if you think about any given community on the internet or elsewhere, you have a group of people surrounding a specific set of morals and ideals, rules, things are interested in, kind of like there's this unspoken or sometimes spoken agreement of these are the things that we think are good and these are the things that we're interested in. This is what it means to be like a positive contributor to this community. Right, varying degrees of like explicitness and those things are across communities, but you can imagine that they exist across for all of them. And that and when you contribute to a given community there's a value, whether it be implicit or explicit. You get money for it, there's on someone paying you to do it, or you get Karma or social credit for the like, and reputation for being the person that has knowledge or wisdom in that community or like how to get things done or who to know to get things done. But the vast majority of those things, especially when you think about like implicit value and social value, is is kind of broken in today's Internet culture and if I think if we can fix that in a way that helps people like we have to use this word over and over again. I'm tired of it, but the concentivises them to contribute to a given community for whatever the community things is good and they can do that incrementally, so they get paid for whatever contributions that's good and that's somehow attached to their social value, then people will spend more time trying to contribute to the things that care about in a positive way and potentially be able to pay for their life in the process of doing it. And in the end, in the end, in the advent of people are the concept of people who are tired of participating in a given community and they'd like to leave it. They're able, like with Crypto, you're literally able to take your value out and move it somewhere else, and I think that's a really important part. Is that, like, I want to remove myself from this given community, I would like to stop participating in this hobby. I've been a creator in this particular community for a long time and I want to I want to try something else. I'm going to pull my value out. I don't get to leverage my value in a mult and a multitude of ways nearly as easily if it's if it's cryptobase, because I'm removing it from a pool, from a digital scarcity. Right I'm I'm literally transforming it into a different digital scarcity and applying it somewhere else, and so like the transparency in which powers distributed across a given community is is drastically better, which I think is one of the main issues with today's, I guess concept of community is that the majority of influence is done by spice things that are not obvious. Yeah, yeah, I try to like marry that with this concept of like tragic of Commons and how the stuff fixed fits into that, because it's it's a very similar thing, it's not the same. Well, the big, big challenge is where does that money come from to reward those contributors? Right, so, if you have a business model, then you can fund it that way. But if you've seen in Crypto, like value can be created at a nowhere. It's depending upon like the dogs one second, depending upon how many...

...people want to do a specific thing and the underlying scarcity that that is used to do that thing. So, yeah, so we say it's created a nowhere, but honestly there's a lot of qualitative value that crypto just quantifies. That's what I'm trying to get get to as like this. For the longest time this value has just been implicit and manipulated in a lot of ways, because information is free on the Internet. When we turn it into an actual digital scarcity and demand its use for like doing the thing, then you you have a lot clear idea of like what that value is and how it stacks up to the other types of things throughout the world. And then it's value is subject to the will of the people in many ways, right, because of the market dynamics. So that's that's where it gets interesting, where it's like, okay, so do we really need you and a swap Sushi, swap dough do and all the balance Er. Do we need all of them? Probably don't, you know, but it's good to have and each one has space to play and really the value of their token kind of it is subject to the will of the same groups of people, just like it is in the stock market or any other or even Pepsi and Coca Cola, like business sales, they have to satisfy the community that that actually is open to supporting them, right. So that's what's really cool about these dynamics. As you get this natural unfortunately it's a little plutocratic, you know, but but you still have at least some accountability to some Group of people, which we are missing in the normal non excludable goods space because it's all governments and we vote once every four years and clearly they're not really very accountable to the well of the people many times. So not nearly as accountable as you know, like the the CRYPTO projects are. Honestly, try to start right because, like we're not going to be like the concept of this isn't going to take over, like, yeah, functories governments anytime soon. So, like what is what is the reasonable starting place for trying to experiment with these dynamics and like social on action and social value? How do you how do you start with small projects that work with a given amount of like value ejected into them so that they could grown? There's a there. That's there's a lot of stuff talk right. Have you ever seen that document? In general magic, though, I think it's worth watching, although only if you're an innovator. If you're an innovator, especially on the bleeding edge, I think it's worth watching. If you're not innovating and you're just like you're not like a decision maker or someone providing scope, you know, you probably, you can probably get enough out of it from my tunnish fuel here. But basically it's a story about a team that spun out of apple in the late s and then actually spent some years developing the first smartphone in the early s and they they were the first ones to put like a touch screen that could go in your pocket. They created EMOJI's, they created APPS, they created all of the stuff that you see in a cell phone came from their work, right. And then they launched in like the early s and they sold threezero copies and went out of business because the people weren't ready for that revolution. They weren't ready for jumping from corded telephones to straight to a smartphone. Right. Everyone's like, what do I do with this? I remember the concept of having smartphones and and I remember I first got my first cell phone and it was able to store numbers and how drastically like changed I was when a second I don't remember the number, I could just put it on my phone and have it. It's like speed dial. Yeah, no, totally. I remember having this in high school, having this big piece of paper with everyone's phone number on it and folded really small type and then putting in my wallet. You know, how do you? I'm thirty six short of the image. Yeah, so we had the same experience and but by the time I when I was doing that, smartphone is already invented. All existed. It just went out of business because it was too early. It was the right idea, but the wrong time and people weren't ready for it. And this idea that I'm presenting today, Hey, let's end altruism. It's abhorrent. It's abhorrent to the masses. Like that, it's like there's a there's a collective. Think you just made a catchy phrase for something that you're not actually trying to do. You're not trying to end altruism, I'm trying to you're trying to make altruism more profitable, you know, but because all transicly profitable altruism. I I don't like the idea that we require people to sacrifice. No, autism does not mean sacrifice. It means doing something regardless of the of like how much it takes from you. Like that. It's the motivation that...

...usually leads to the concept of altruism. The consequences are are based on the framework in which rewards happen. Like you can have altruism in a real crypto economic system. It's just gets it just gets paid, because the motivation is the same. Well, will know, the motivation to provide value in that direction might be the same, but the altruism implies selflessness and is selfless concern for the wellbeing of others or for priving value to society. You can say, Hey, it's just and that's not the motivation. Yeah, it's that in my opinion. Like, but if we, if we pay people, then can be sustainable and it's okay, like we can, we can disagree that. Maybe I am maybe I am go down the hole semantics. Yeah, exactly so, and made. I am like, what are you? You know, sensationalizing it. But it is kind of the end. That's not great. Fifty year gold, that's obviously not. Like how do we start right now? Unfortunately, this idea is not going to be accepted by a lot of people because, like, if I told you, hey, you can make a lot of help money helping orphans, let me tell you how it be. Like, dude, your evil, like strong. Yeah, it's a this is a scam. This is bad. But I if I told you, Hey, the people like, let's go help a lot of the people who are helping orphans, they should be rewarded, right, and be like yeah, of course that's more. But then you frame it in, Hey, we can make money by helping orphans, and it's like Whoa, you know, yeah, I get that argument and I think that's maybe based on, I think, our general assumption that everything is a Zeroso game. Exactly nailed it, and and that's where, that's where it really starts, is by saying no, actually, we're expanding the economy and we're creating the that the larger economic space and we're creating a new economic game. Right. So you can think of economy is the economy is a game, the US dollar economy. The goal is to get the high score and you do whatever you can get a high score, and even when Your Elon Lusk and Jeff Bezos and you have the highest score, you keep playing because there's going for the high score. You know what's crazy. But if we can create another economic game where actually to get the high score, in this game you are helping orphans or cleaning the river, you know, and this is how you get the high score in this game, you think that's like the right motivation because, in my opinion, the concept of I need to get the highest score is it led to our current business strategy of unsustainable forever gruff. So there's you have to you you have to design your models in the environment that they're in, an environment that we're in. That we're in is that humans have faults, right. We are greedy, we are tribalistic, we have, you know, we have a desire, we're self interested, we we fall, we fail to a lot in a lot of ways. And so instead of like trying to create the perfect system for how we want humans to be, we need to accept these, as you know, parameters in the design and say, okay, well, humans like to be rewarded for doing work, so then let's reward them for doing this work. You know, it's not about is this the ideal? Like this, is this what I how I want it to be? No, I want everything that just work perfectly and everyone to love each other. Right. But but in this world where there is imagine a factory polluting a river. Right, they have shareholders and they can say, Hey, shareholders, like you know, we could get rid of our pollution ethically by but it cost us five grand a months, right, and the sharehold is could say no we actually the goal of this organization is to make profit and the state says that that is acceptable level of pollution for that river. So it's cool, right and effectively, that factory has a fiduciary duty to pollute that river. They have to make a profit and because a clean river doesn't have value on a spreadsheet, they have to continue this situation. And so the way, in my opinion, a way to avoid that, is to say hey, let's let's create value for people who are coordinating value production for this river. It's not about quantifying the river. The river is is a beautiful thing. I don't want to tokenize the river. I want to create a system that actually coordinates value production around keep making that river the way that everyone wants it to be clean, pristine, fun to play in, drink clean drinking water, you know,...

...value for society and everyone around that river was love for it to be that way. But they don't have a system that works for them to make it that way and they don't have an aligned incentive. They don't have a way to be rewarded for making it that way. So let's create a way from them be rewarded. Let's use cryptoeconomics let's seese token engineering to actually create a system for the people who want to keep it clean to be rewarded, and then that we can go to that factory and we can say hey, take care of your pollution ethically and even though the state doesn't require it, state's not going to disappear. But even though the state doesn't require it, how about we send you like we give you two thousand dollars a month to take care of your pollution ethically and we do major campaigns about how awesome you are in our community so you can get extra jobs and get your creating an ability to put something on a spreadsheet for that business while all having a community that is best post to manage a stream with people who care about the most or river to provide that spreadsheet. BNE. Yeah, and that's what tokens do. They just put qualitative value on a spreadsheet. So like the way I picture the majority of the reason for Cryptok is like or like decentralization in general, right, but just like go on a broader scale. When everyone talks about we should decentralize everything, more often than not they're talking about we should decentralized power. It's we should decentralize the ability for a small few to affect the many, regardless of their desire to be affected. Right. And so what you're talking about is building community did dynamics that help people balance that power a little bit. Yeah, or like or or lease keep track of it. Yeah, and and I think what you said earlier was something that I think is something like maybe a narrative that we should explore more. Their community is quantifying the value. That hasn't like that the just it's never been quantified before. So like we're putting a number to a lot of the things that we deem valuable and then giving it the ability to be traded in an open market. And and and if you look at it from that perspective, or whatever the right way to put that is, then it doesn't look like the cryptic community is just fabricating money at a thin air. It's always existed. It's just a better tract now and able to be traded and applied to things that like our benefits. Shule. Yeah, yeah, you said to really interesting things. They're the first one being, Hey, we need to democratize in many ways, like a littleoud decentralized power. Right, and democratize might be the wrong framing, but decentralizing power absolutely. And the other thing that you said is, Hey, we're creating an interesting market dynamic. Right, and I want to read two quotes from some people are a reference Eleanor Ostrom really nails it here with the there is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well meaning, are better at solving problems than the people on the spot who have the strongest incentive to get the solution right. You know, it's like the people who are there can make the best decisions. There's no reason to think some outsiders are going to some whether it's a technocracy, a cryptotechnocracy or it's a government official right that it's going to be able to say, Oh, yeah, this is how you should do it. You know, the people on the ground are the ones to do it. Yeah, I have. I have a lot of thoughts of that. Keep going okay, and then David Bollier brings up, brings up this idea that the next big thing will be a lot of small things. Right. That like the way to solve these problems is not by creating one massive solution. That's what we have. We have a government that has a monopoly and every public goods vertical right and and it's very impossible, it's almost impossible, to compete if you're a nonprofit. You know, in fact, nonprofits really just fill a void that governments aren't doing a good job at. In nonprofits in Venezuela provide clean water. Are Very many clean water nonprofits in the states because we don't have we have clean water. So, but I'll let you go to the Eleanor offs from thing before I go into the market dynamics piece. Well, I got I got thoughts on both of those. Now Shit, so you got. I would say this. So I've been there's there's a there's a book that I'm trying to write that I've been trying to...

...write for a while now, and it's and it's mainly focused on people like the the one skill that I hope to give my son, and that is the ability to understand how to aggregate curators of information or Cess what it means to be a good curators information right, because at this point is impossible to be able to consume it all. You have to delegate that ability to have to delegate that, the curation of information to somebody else in some aspect of your life and the and the majority of the aspects of your life. You can only be a specialist in a very small amount of things, because we have a limited amount of time on applanet, and so we're in right now and today's kind of it. Today's like the Internet society and how most people consume information. People lack the ability to understand whether or not what they're getting is good information, and this is a part of kind of what you just said with Alan or quote, is that the people who are best suited to weigh in on a given situation are the ones who are intimately involved with that thing. Unfortunately, more often than not they're also the ones who are who are like the further down you go into a specialization, the more assumptions you make about the things you say to the people who are also that specialized, so that you can have efficient communication. I know that you know X, Y and Z, which are in the introductory things that this of the specialty. So I can talk as if you know those things, and that gets lost whenever you go above anybody who has that specialty. Right and so like, what you need to do, is a generalist, is identify the people who are able to bridge that gap between understanding everything in a deep specialty but also being able to relay that information to it more general public in a way that's consumable to them. But that's where it gets really difficult. How do you relay this information? And I digesting you're asking why it's difficult to be an educator. Well, no, this is not why it's difficult. I'm just saying it is, and it is very difficult to take very complex information and that that experts are using to make the decisions and then distill that to people who barely even care and making it legible when they don't have the background. So it's a it's a difficult question and honestly, I wonder like we don't have to do that in the free market. We don't have to say, Hey, you know, iphone, this is how you should be making your iphones, right we we let them have the expertise and then they capitalize on their expertise to bribe value for society or but in an excludable way. Right the I mean all these cell phones are incredible, they're providing a lot of value for us, but they're able to create a business model and the public holds them accountable by actually participating in their business model. If they like them, the like the service they provide. But they don't. They're not holding them, they're not participating in this way. That's like, Yo, tell me how like your microchips for tell me how the touch screen works. They don't have to know. Yeah, I got to think with with the this better like social relationship. So you can, you can provide, through cryptoeconomics and like Social Crypto, the people who are best suited to both understand and given topic and when and transform that information or what should be but should be understood from that information, the insights to a more general public could be rewarded for such a thing. Like they're talking about curation right so, like right now, the curation market and today's society is Algorithms, right, recommendation, algorithms by Big Tech. They consume your data, they run it through a lot of machine learning and at our official intelligence to say, based on the things that you've done, this is what we expect you to do, and this is this is rot for the dumb wrong. I'd love aim machine learning, but it has a lot of interest, like potentials for entrance and in to bias, in manipulation, and it's very difficult, when in the circumstances with that happens, to identify it quickly and clearly, like me understanding whether or not the movie that was reckon recommended to me on Netflix came from someone purchasing the ability to give me that recommendation or it's based off my actual like this is something that just came out of some machine learning agrhythm without any any bias whatsoever. Is Impossible. When you allow the curation mechanism to become...

...humans who are best suited to provide general goods to a community or like what it means to be good for a community, then a lot of that goes away because it's clear and that people could, those people are basically can be paid to spend the time doing the thing they're already doing, as opposed to, like trying to find alternative methods for for paying their bills, and and we give them skin in the game on top of it. Right, like they wrong? Then they don't. They lose that value, and they did. They are immediately, theymediately know that it's the wrong direction for that given community. Yeah, great feedback mechanisms and yeah, it's the this this idea of quality and quantity, right, like quantifying something qualitative. Honestly, humans do it better than algorithms and we just need to do it through signal aggregation. Like lots of humans all looking at putting in their data, and and that's like almost voting in a way, right, as I say, it's of marriage, right, it's I don't want to throw AWA AI in machine learning. No, of course, no, Ye, I'm I don't know. I don't understand the relationship between the two. I mean, don't get me wrong, like if we're talking about blockchains here, there's a tremendous amount of data for AML to go and go and go to town with. But take taking something that is like the question is, is this good? Right, and trying to get what it means for given community is very different. Right. We're, for talking about a community, and Nazis what they want to be good is something that the rest of communities would consider a BHOARD. And and so that, in my opinion, the easiest way to allow this is through open participation, right, like free market has open participation. So you have a you can aggregate everyone's signal. What does this quality? So in the common stack we have this praise system that's really, really cool. Like this is, you know, their source cred which does a great job at rewarding contributors for quantitative data, you know, but then it gets a little bit gamable, right. It's no matter what solution you have for this problem, it's going to be hard. Taking qualitative work and turning into quantitative rewards very difficult. But with the common stack we care this praise system where it actually takes it kind of uses it to make a culture of gratitude. I praise Corey for, you know, bringing me to this podcasts right, and then I just put in telegram. Everyone's vibe is a little higher. I'm recording your work right effectively in a qualitative way, and keeping it qualitative allows us to bring in this culture of giving, this culture of gratitude, you know, where I'm just like Corey, is awesome having on podcast, had a great conversation, you know, major praise, and then that ends up in a spreadsheet and we separate the quantification with time. So maybe two weeks later, people from the community and and and it's done all in the open. We straight up go through and read every single praise right every single praise, and we're talking in two weeks. We often have like a thousand praises. This is how the sausage is made and it's not a lot of fun, honestly. Right, it's thinking about how this doesn't scale. Yeah, so it definitely doesn't scale. But does it have to scale if you keep things small? Right, the whole point is scaling horizontally, not scaling vertically. So have lots of these small communities that do this thing and obviously, right now we're in a spreadsheet. This thing needs to be an after tune, right, I'm thinking about that, and it could possibly work if it was. It was it paid people's bills, right. Yea Process of doing is pay people's bills, because then they can just contribute to the things they care about the most and a small amount of way, and they can pay their bills like good every two recordable enough. Is what the goal should be. Yeah, being paid by gratitude. That sounds really nice, right. It creates this beautiful culture and and it's almost a way of notifying everyone, hey, this thing happened. So, like if it checks a lot of boxes, like transmitting information around, creating a culture, that is like enjoyable to be in and then also rewarding contributions, especially care work contributions. You know, it's hard. How does source cred, you know, reward you for bringing me on this podcast? Right? Like it looks at Geth hub, it looks at discord, it looks at discourse, the forum, right, and you this isn't out on any of those. So really the marriage is both. Right, I love source cred and I love this praise system and I've and then right now, that token engineering common is is integrating both together so that we can have this like we met. We don't have...

...to dish praise for people going to calls, for instance, right, or or like dishing things that can be automated. We don't have to dish praise for so that we can have less praise on the praise board, because right now the praise system is doing all the all the stuff like Oh, thank you, but just praise to these twenty people for posting on the forum. You know, it's like okay, like that could easily just be done by source crid and then, but the larger things that are just like Oh, this person did this awesome thing that we all get to benefit from, get recorded in this way and then there's less praises, but it's this and then this is how we could track these qualitative contributions and then we score them by allowing in an open process where anyone can participate. Oh well, there's a little bit of a level of like you have to be somewhat aware of how this is, aware that existence, right, but like that's going to be the same thing with any community. Like yeah, I in the in the event that this becomes wealthy, successful and a bunch of communities do this type of thing, they'll understand that this is the process you go through to kind of quantify the last week's like events towards the community. Yeah, and it's great feedback. It's so much great rich data. I try to think about this from like, if you think about it from we're going to still take a read it as an example, right, and you take any given subread it, regardless of Holso taric. It is like they have the UPBOAT system and they have Karma associated with kind of your history of giving up votes, whether it be from posting things. Are Given comments and that's used as a way to Kinda to give you an idea of like how much is this person contributed to this given well, to read it in general, it's difficult to identify that with respect to any given community. A lot of these token economics and systems that you're trying to build is narrowing down on that process of like, how valuable is this person to this given community and what is their associated way, based on how every one of the community feels about their contribution, not what a given algorithm is. That's gapable feels about this contribution. And I think, but I think it's important, ever, to we we say roles, not souls, right, like you never quantify a person. A person is a unique snowflake. I say contribution, right, yeah, a contribution is is very can be quantified without hurting people's feelings. I mean this is the other thing is that we often forget that token engineering, like true token engineering. It involves so many sciences. It is not just data science or crypto economics. It involves the systems engineering, of course. Yeah, Sure, control theory, AI, computer science, all these things like economics and Game Theory, but also, you know, you're building a socioeconomic system, so you need to understand there you need to actually include philosophy, law, ethics, political science, governance lessons, psychology, decisions, decision science, you know, and and really community management. All of these pieces need to be included in the way you design your reward system. Otherwise you miss out, I. Otherwise you can really screw things up. I mean, look at what x moons has done to the our cryptocurrency. So read it. It's super cool, right. It's like, Oh, I guess uploading about that if it's so heads down with much of other stuff that I basically don't know anything that's going on a cryptocurrency fuit, there's only infrastructure. For me, there's this. It's a nice case study. There's this x moon token that you can get for giving up votes in the art. It's like donuts. Yeah, it's exactly like donuts, a little different. has its own little differences, the big one being, well, I don't know. I don't know exactly. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on either of those economies, but I know with x moons people are effectively able to buy a book. They are able to go to dark markets and buy people buy up votes right and and now there's a market for up votes because up votes are rewarded in a quantitative way. It's a directly quantitative way with this currency that you can then go to Una swap and trade for ether, you know, and so you have this inflation that is going to really people who are batter with the community and the ability to like suss out what is actual good information for that community. It ruined it exactly. It totally ruined the curation model that they're trying to go for because they they didn't look at the other dimensions. is like, okay, sir, we let's build this economy and here's the right incentives that we want. But, oh, get what do you know? Not Everybody is a saint. You know, people...

...are going to gain your system and you didn't put any text or balances, you didn't put any human oversight, and it in a socioeconomic system. I don't get me wrong, I love decentralization. I'm all about it, but we need to have some human inputs, you know, and the in instead of making me by that like what. Sorry, like, I didn't mean to not like. People like this. This space loves to say I love decentralization. Yeah, I feel like that's a shitty sentence. Yeah, because it's not it it regards to what, and there's like it's the the concept of human relationships and it's so broad that you can't map it to the concept of centralized versus decentralized. And that's what a lot of like, I think the narrative, has done within the cryptocurrency ecosystem and in reality, like the majority of the things that we've done over the past five to ten years, has been how far can we spin the sex but swing the pendulum from centralized that decentralized. What can we do that's so one hundred percent decentralized, that was centralized, to see what works, and we're like, most of it doesn't work, because in reality, most social relationships are somewhere in between, depending upon the types of things that you're trying to decentralize, whether that be like a token distribution that does that has some specific purpose, the power of one person to insert assert their will over many, the physical hardware that votes on certain things, and the geographical representation and like it being resilient to power surges across the globe. But there's so many things that you have to take on an account when you talk about the word decentralized. That I just hate that term so much. Yeah, and this right or looking for a robust, like redundant system that can't doesn't turn off, that that will continue and that actually solves a problem. You know, I think that's the piece like, Oh yeah, decentralize all the things now, let's just solve the problems that we need to solve. Right, and decentralization can help, but it's not always the right solution. Like the common stack, we have this trusted seed and because we want to enable people to initialize like nonprofit economies, basically, but in and and we it's not about like one person, one vote or one person. You know, make sure we don't have multiple people. And it's really like, Oh, initializing economies is a very dangerous situation or it's a very easy place to extract value. Right, especially we're using bonding curves to solve the liquidity issues around microeconomies. So initializing a bonding curve, it's a there's a lot of opportunity there. So that makes it a very adversarial space. But we want to make it so that regular nonprofit groups have like some blockchain expertise, that the available for them, and people who have expert have been through like launching these systems before, and so we have this trusted seed where people can apply to join and we look you up. It's a centralized, curated system by our like Swiss association, and you can only join if you are if you have some proof that you're an actual, like good person, a unique person, and your value aligt. Like if we go to your twitter and it's air drop, air drop, defive, long, defy, short calls and that's it, you're not going to be accepted. If it's air drop, air drop, Defylong, short calls and a whole bunch of like a grassroots economics is really cool. Check this out. Oh Hey, like I really, you know, with some like Oh, there is, there is. You are trying to make the world better place with blockchain or you care about it or you're actively participating. You're not only here to extract value, but you also want to give value. Yeah, that's okay, you can. You can still be like, you know, self interested and socially minded at the same time. You can be both. It's okay, right, and then we then we would let you in, but we might give you a lower score, a lower cap. Everybody in the trusted seed has a maximum cap that they can get on their reputation, that they can buy right. So because effectively it's like a proof of altruism, you can you can pay membership dues to the Swiss association and then that will also increase your reputation because, hey, you're effectively donating right and to to continue this work. It's a it's a because we're creating an exclusionary system. We can also like fund ourselves through this, through this system. But of course, to join the Swiss membership, like, if you don't have...

...the means, will give you a scholarship and you can get in for free if you're a good person. It's totally cool that it's the main purpose is to actually create a group of people who are value aligned, that are in the blockchain space and trying to actually make the world a better place with it, that other economies can use to see their economy. This is why people love air drops to get coin. It's the same kind of idea. But then now bunch of like Oh, round eight, round nine was horrible. So many people just like making fake transactions to donate so they can be part of air drops in the future. You know, and and so we want, you know, we're trying to build something and it requires centralization to do the qualitative measurement of is this person a good person, like, are they going to come in and pump and dump economies are not right? What is the likelihood it's all right? So probably start to wrap a little bit from here, like yeah, before we wax poetic about a few other things. How I preview who are interested in what you're doing? Where do they go to find out more and try, I say it, say like someone who watches this is like he's what I'm about. I wouldn't know more. Where do they go? My twitter? Probably I mostly retweet. Honestly, I'm not that active on twitter. By a retweet all the common stack giveth and trust a token engineering Commons work that I'm work that I'm pushing, and DAP mode as well. Those are like the four projects I spend the most time on. So I if you follow me on twitter, you'll get all the retweets. Right now, probably the hottest spot is the token engineering Commons discord. There we're doing the first participatory the first economy ever that's been generated from the bottom up where anyone could propose the mission vision value use of this economy. Anyone can propose the technical parameters for this economy and and then those get voted on by the community and then those are what applied. Like instead of, you know, just trusting the technocracy to choose thirty two ether or whatever economic prammers that they want, we can actually have that come from bottom up and be a proposal that people can decide on right, which is wild, a wild it's never happened before in the history of humanity to have participatory economics, but I think it's super exciting and that's all happening in the token engineering discord and it really is like, I mean, this is to me, this is the transition from monarchy style economies to democratic economies and I I'm really stoked about it. So that's that's probably the best place to go. Or follow at Common Stack, at tcmnst Commons, or follow Giveth Ioh are also all great at that mode and Sabe some links about the all these things and I'll just put them in the description so people could check out. Twitter's the spot. It scrypt? Oh yeah, unfortunately it is. That's where I fight. I use it to be in crypto twitter. Otherwise I wouldn't say man, I met you. So we just had JC rush on the show on the bitcoin part, guess, to talk about true blocks and stuff, and we in him had met during the doll when we were like trying to like which of someone's girl interesting, and that's that's where I met you. Two write like so, like I met you during that process when you were the community manager for that hole she bang. Did you, like, could you imagine that this is where you'd be based on you getting that degree and I'm starting working as a community manager for project? Like slock it in the doll. Okay, that's a hell of a life, right, like, like what have you like, could you have foreseen that this is the chain of events that got you to where you are now? I mean nothing from the doll's initialization. I could I have ever imagined, I think. Come on, that was wild. The hard fork, like the White Hack Group, packing all these things, and then other hacks that came up all of a sudden. I'm not a I'm a COP, I'm a chemical engineer. I'm not really a computer science dude. You know, that's my background, and so like having a all of a sudden I'm like on a hacker group. That's like running the white hat scene for like a couple of years and then now, thank God, we don't have to do that anymore. But you know, in I knew I was. I was always in it for blockchain, for good, right before blockchain was a thing, when it was...

...all just Padd I remember your your contribution there was very much like this is something cool, this is something like that. That the concept of the doubt. Originally it was a beautiful thing and I think those are those ideals carried through and, like a lot of the projects, we have to be unfortunately, we were naive in the underlying security or smart contracts. That's about it. But like, it's interesting to see how all the players in that small group have gone on to do things. And I mean I've been following you and talk with you this whole time. Like what would you my my opinion, watching you from somewhat afar, it seems as though you've just kept contributing to a bunch of projects you were passionate about. Is that wrong? Like, what what is your what is your, I guess, recommendation to people who are trying to get into this ecosystem and contribute in ways that are valuable. I mean it's exactly that. Just go contributing ways that are valuable. Make yourself this is always my suggestion, especially in this bull market right now. Oh my God, it is so easy to get involved in a project and then get a job. Like you just make yourself useful going there with agency. Everyone's too busy and we have horrible management structures and Crypto, just across the board it's startup world and everyone is poorly organized. It's run by DEV's, not like CEO type people for the most part, that understand, like man organizational management. I don't understand it and I run a bunch of these orgs. I'm more it's horrible, right, and and and so if you just go in there and you make yourself useful and it's like, Oh my God, if this person left, that would really suck. We better give them a job before they leave. You know, this is that's the way doing all these things that I don't want to do. It it's helpful. Yeah, yeah, and and the what's really cool about that way in is that you just naturally do things that you want to do. Right. So then you're almost creating your own job description by finding the things that like, you like doing and you do well, you know, and that's that goes back to our original conversation. Is that what I think, what me and you were trying to build in a lot of ways is mechanisms and process. We're going and doing the things that you would like doing. Is Easy to do and it's incrementally beneficial to you. Like you don't like this is to park it back to that, and I guess we could finish up here in a little bit. But, like, there's this huge problem in today's society where the like the the type of risk you have to take on in order to make a career shift is monumental. There's no way to start a hobby, find time to participate in that hobby, engage in the community and understand, like try to try and absorb wisdom from that community on how to like be good at that hobby, contribute small pieces of content to it, learn so on and so forth. In the in if that, if that hobby is differentiated in any way to what your current career path is, you don't have the time to do any of those things and like and whatever little time you do, there's no way to get any type of like contribution to like the bottom line, to your life and the process are doing that. It has to be done through pure joy and altruism, or like therapyers, whatever you want to call it, right and so, like I think what we're trying to do in a lot of ways is provide ways in which people can start to contribute and things they're interested in and get incrementally paid for their contribution to those things are interested in, so that that shift of going from I'm doing this thing I don't really enjoy but I'm good at, to pay the bills too, I do all the things that I enjoy and it pays the bills, or like. The transition from those two things is, I think, a very important like identifying what you think you'd enjoy is a very difficult process because that changes throughout the life of somebody. So, like, if we have ways of people to contribute to communities and get paid for them commensurate to their contribution, yeah, and whatever communities that they want to be part of, and it allows people to explore like who they are and what they want to be doing and be dynamic in that type of thing, where, like I'm going all in on this one thing I hope, the right thing, because I'm gonna have to be do it the rest of my life. Yeah, yeah, I know exactly. I mean this is a, you know, the future of work, right, this is I hope that's what it is. That's what I want, like that's the world that I want to try and work towards, and I think that we're very much aligned to that type of thing and I oh, yeah, yeah, and I...

...think the world is naturally shifting that way to, which is nice. The my push is also like, Hey, we should reward people that are doing, you know, contributions to society and then maybe even be able to like better judge things that aren't continuing to society that still make a lot of money, you know, like like building extra weapons maybe shouldn't be a reward of as much as not, like, I don't know if we need that next tank, you know, and these other things. It would be nice to have more of a fair balance between like allowing allowing people also say hey, actually, there's these societal goods that have value too, so let's value those needs as well. You know. That's that's the that's the one thing I want to but, dude, thanks for having me this was fun. Really Love, love your podcast, of course. So it's fine down here. I didn't like day. I do it for the conversations. That's really bad and thank come F.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (127)