Okay, thanks for finding it. Let's give it a moment. I'm going to tell people that we are here and make sure that it gets its way out there.
We're gonna just take a moment and then I'll take care of this.
Thanks for your patience. - Ben, are you able to hear me? - Yeah, I can hear you just now. - And you blow joy. - And let's make sure that you got the ability to speak. - I do, thank you very much. I think it break in here now, appreciate that.
Elon please fix the bugs. Let's let's give. At least just let us restart it if there is a bug. I want to make sure that
Yeah, give me a I'm I'm gonna go back to the head of product at Twitter
Yeah, I cannot believe that this keeps going on with them and that even major like people who do this on a regular basis still struggle with this. I'm going to just find our space and see if I can edit it and make sure that people can
see that we're here because that really was getting a good group of people. And in the meanwhile, I want to make sure that none of you guys are not entertained. And so
We can talk about the trial and tribulations of Dowsen General before we go back to talk about Ergon. I really admire and respect everyone who is building on
what is a platform for the public and for the future of participation. And I can tell you from my experience, I
have built a small NFT collector dowel all the way to helping collab that launched their 50,000 plus member dowel. And the challenges are incredibly hard. And I think the technical challenges are difficult, but what is really, really hard
And what I mean by that is actually putting together a group of people who are aligned, who's incentives are aligned long term, who can act with civility and with empathy around each other so that the Dow accomplishes
So every doubt that I've seen, every doubt that I've seen have any amount of momentum has clarity around what the community is there for, what the community has been rallied around, what the treasury is about and what it's supposed to be spent on.
And without that clarity and without a reinforcement that clarity on a regular basis, because everybody's joining and everybody's new, it really becomes difficult to actually get those group of people who've never met, who rarely ever worked with each other to move forward in a meaningful way.
Having been an entrepreneur for a long time, I have been building companies since the web one, Internet Days, when I was basically just straight out of college. This has really been a eye-opening experience of just how quickly we can scale, and with quick scaling comes again the
challenges of coordination. And so my bias and my heart has always been for the builders, the people who show up who take risks, both personal, financial and reputational and say, I'm going to put something new into the world to see if we can actually make the world better. And so I have a deep amount of respect for everyone who is building in the space.
what I don't want to get hung up on are styles. And if your style is more abrasive, if your style is that you don't communicate as well, we've got to learn to actually make styles more substantial to what we do.
We have to make sure that those styles are compatible in a public space setting, which a doubt is a semi public space. So I'll get off my soapbox and I think Andrew's doing the yoga's work here of getting everybody back in. And so it looks like we're starting to get a lot of people back in together. I appreciate that. We are. If everybody could please just reshare
the new link. If you go to the bottom right of your screen, you should see that there's a bubble and if you hit reshare on that, we'll be able to bring some of the almost thousand people who are in here before and we can participate and start getting back into this now. So Anthony, could you do the setup again? The nice thing about having a crash
is before, even though I set it to record the space, it wasn't recording, so now we are recording. So if you do a setup, we'll have it up on recording, and I'll make sure to keep sharing, and I'll appreciate everybody who's resharing that we're in here. But go for it, Anthony. Sure, I'll try and set up a bit more quickly this time. So yeah, everybody,
Anthony from Eragon here, I'm the head of growth, so I'm working one of the guilds actually within the Eragon Dow. Just gave a brief history that Eragon from 2017 sort of created the first out framework. This allows Dow to launch and manage, you know, their organizations, their communities,
their treasuries on chain, such as LiDOT, Central land, etc. We just launched a new tech stack. So we've been heads down building, as Dan mentioned. And we were discussing, or I was giving a little background on that sort of the complexity on Erragons' own Dow and how we were building that and just being like transparent about how
some of those challenges. Sort of gave the groundwork of like so Erigon has really big treasury from its 2017 ICO does not have many token holders who are engaged from that time. We have a lot of builders who are engaged, a lot of people who are building dows, who want dows built on their chains, etc. But not so much like token
holders. Our community is mainly builders. We have a much lower market cap to treasury ratio. As you all know, with high liquidity, this also makes it a little dangerous in a doubt. When the AirGun Association, the organization of 2017 decided
Last year to host a signal vote, so token holders to decide if we should move into a DAO, there was a resounding yes and thus the work began. How do we build this DAO safely to safely manage this treasury? The organization remembers a Swiss legal entity at this point and is completely separate from the DAO.
just launched in February. Plan is to move $170 million from the Treasury into the doubt as safely as possible. And this says mean that, you know, people like the board members of that organization, which I'm not a part of, although they're all great people, are, you know, legally liable for making sure that those assets are moved over safely in, you know, in accordance with the mandate that
they have. So we set up this sort of plan. I also want to point out when you're on the board of an organization like this that there's personal liability to actually getting it done right. It's not just like an employee and if you mess something up then you're like oops the company takes care of it. The board is personal
And it's quite reliable for the actions of the organization. Exactly. And again, a lot of that is forgotten. Like there is complexity. It's challenging, you know, trying to move this organization into a Dow and even though we build Dow tools, it's a challenge. And we have experimented before. We launched an optimistic governance Dow in 2020.
and spent a year experimenting with that and token holders decided not to carry on with that but move to a delegate voting down. So in February we launched a delegate voting down and now it's up to the Oregon Association to start moving those funds and slowly and safely. So the teams were able to move in and then about two weeks ago
we moved the first 300,000 USDC into the DAO from the Ergon Association. So the minute those funds hit the DAO, it no longer has any correspondence to the Ergon Association. They can't touch it. They have nothing to do with it. It is controlled by token holders. And so, upon, this is where now the
I don't want to call a fun because it's been really stressful two weeks, but this is where maybe for some of you viewers with your popcorn the fun began. And you know around exactly the time of this 300,000 USDC transfer, our discord just sort of starts to get bombarded with people coming in and you know a couple dozen people coming
in, asking about moving the treasury faster, asking all these questions, a couple of them start swearing, and we sort of get this tip off from another DAO that these are what are called self-proclaimed RFV Raiders, which is interesting, and RFV stands for risk-free value. And so this is a group of community
of people that try and basically go from doubt to doubt to try and work. I don't know how to say this, but it can be quite nefarious. It can not be nefarious, but get that doubt to basically give the token holders the difference in value in between the market cap and the treasury. So, air gun was primed for
this. However, when they came in to our discord, I don't know if they realized that only $300,000 was actually controlled by the Dow at that point because we'd only done transfer one of many and that the $177 million was still in the Airgun Association.
And so when we got this tip off that this was going to like really escalate, there was a lot of spam, some swearing, we were like, okay, like we need to do something and protect our community. We don't know who any of these people are, obviously. So we ended up deciding to temporarily ban what ended up being six of them. And this is where sort of the
controversy began. So one of them, they started DMing our teams and one of them DM me and said like, you know, hour or not hour, but a reporter from CoinDesk is on his way, type thing and we're like, oh no, like what's going on now? And of course here comes this CoinDesk reporter and out goes an article about
how we are stopping token holders from participating in the DAO. And Dan, you can jump in here, but this is interesting because what you ask this question about community is like who is community? Like for us it was always builders and now some people bought tokens maybe a day before the same day, a month before, but and have just joined
this group and want to enact changes immediately which seemed very very nefarious and we were tipped off as such. And so we made this ban but luckily we didn't ban many people or we only been one person from the forum and the forum is actually where Erdogan does governance. We don't do governance and discord it everybody in the Erdogan community knows that. So it was sort of
I'm using it in that way, but this is where the controversy kicked off. I've always thinking about, well, are they community, are they not? They're coming in for a quick buck to take as much as they can, potentially steal the treasury at the 51% attack or not, and then leave. Is that community or not? Some people think it is. They bought tokens. Some don't. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that as well#
What was the state of purpose of the doubt? What was the mission of the doubt? The mission of the air gun association is their mandate is to push
to fund builders and developers to build DAW tools. And was that mentioned carried over to the DAW? So there was a token holder vote, a signal vote for a hyper structure strategy within the DAW, which
is to build a hyper structure, so governance tooling, and that was what was voted in by token holders. Okay. So, Ergon says, "Hey, we exist to fund DAO's to build an Ergon.
or to build tools and others for the Dow community to advance that mission. Nothing in there about tokenhold of value, the money here is so that we can keep recycling it back into the building. The Dow is actually created because
to enact that purpose. You want more distribution of that capital for the purposes of building.
So I have that right? Yes, exactly.
Okay, and then these guys show up and say, hey, we want the money. Exactly. And so it's a double-worn thing that I see. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, well, actually it's not for me. It's a uncomfortable situation to be in. It's the media clearly didn't go through and did the research.
But to me, that's very clear. The reason any organization exists is not to purely enrich those who hold tokens or securities or property or what have you. That is the long-term goal of participation, but for someone to show up and
and say, "Hey, I've joined this organization and the thing that I want, despite what you have said publicly, what the mission is, and why everybody else is here, I'm gonna make it uncomfortable until you buy me out, or until you make me rich." That seems to me a complete violation of the rules of the house.
Yeah, and I would say this is sort of how we got into some hot water because I think crypto Twitter at least and we communicated poorly to be frank like and we know that And I'll tell you how we got there and and so yeah, we tried to protect our builders like that was in all honestly that that's
That's the decision we made to temporarily ban, like just to be like, what is going on here, all this spam, there's a custom going on, like we're going to protect the builders, the developers who use Discord, like we do governance in the forum in Discord. So, so at that point, we then noticed that ANT was being bought up
like a lot of antivas being bought up. And now we've came to the conclusion and we started doing research on some of these RFV Raiders, this group of people, and noticed that there were other dows that they had attacked or fragmented or worked with or whatever you want to call it. It depends who you are, including
including Rungstow, Rungstow, Temple Dow, and Big Ones. They work with this VC investment firm known for these types of behaviors.
They're smart. They have a lot of capital. They're very strategic in how they do this. And so, yeah, I was like, whoa, this is intense. So we're seeing A&T's getting butt up, W&T's being wrapped. We use a wrapper to vote. And so we're like, okay, like maybe this is some type of 51% attack. They'll try and signal vote for
the Treasury to be moved over. And so we tried to make it really, really clear to them. And this is where we made some mistakes, to be honest. We tried to like, basically, we realized that I guess we assume that the organization could no longer send funds. I'm not in the organization as I mentioned, but like their mandate is that the money that is in the Treasury has to go towards
building and it's a utility token, like a legally binding Swiss utility token because it's a Swiss association and actually it's what's on has this actual like allocation for tokens and so they probably can't send funds to the item or so now we have this Dow with 300 K and it funds can't
go into it anymore to build this Dow as long as these raiders are sitting in it. So they can't access the treasury, the big one, the hundreds of million, but they can 300K. And so we put out this statement being like, you know what, Ergon's going to, and this was the huge mistake, we're going to repurpose the Dow, well we should have said it repurposed how we're going to use the Dow.#
I remember that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that. So, that.#
our own down, which is 100% not the case. And to be honest, when I read the news, I kind of came in, you know, through the back, right? Like I saw the news kind of after the shitstorm had happened and then I read that and my lens going into it was, oh my god, what the fuck?
Yeah, right. And I think a lot of people had that reaction and again, this is a difficulty of communicating with the public at large because you come in from the inside trying to do well with the context of like here the sequence of events that happened and what happens is as the shits from gets bigger what people are exposed to is the headline at the peak of the shit
They're changing the goal of the Dow. How dare they? Like what authority do they have? Exactly. And actually we have no authority to do that. We just totally miscommunicated and it was a total fuck up to be honest. And we haven't slept well, especially my team since. We tried to make amends with a tweet afterwards. Obviously.
Obviously to just clarify like yeah, we don't have control over the doubt like we went we really want to move funds I can't express that I know that There's in the middle because that's where we access funds to build our tools like Erick on wants to be a doubt it by the way like it's going to be a doubt we're now
trying to work around how that's going to happen. We've actually unbanned the RFD Raiders. They're actually quite well-behaved right now. We've put them in the forum. They're all talking about, you know, next steps and how they want to have token buybacks and all these types of things. Let me ask a different question here. You guys characterize this as a 51% attack. I do
I have some issue with that. Yes, some people do. Yes, that's true. The reason being, so yeah, there's a couple of reasons why we decided to call it an attack. One is it felt very attack like there was dozens of people coming in. We were told that they would use social engineering tactics on our team and on our contributors to try and separate us.
trying to cause discontent so that more people and voters will work with them. They brought in media that works very closely with them to spin the narrative. And we know we've been told by other DAOs that they've dealt with that they've hired private investigators to personally follow them, people in
these dows, contributors, things like this. This is quite frightening to be friendly. This is not a joke. I totally get that part. And the personal part, what's challenging for everyone is you haven't really dealt with this level of visibility or being in public before.
But I think there's an escalation that has been going on in which I think communication needs to de-escalate, especially in situations like this. And the other thing is, as the community is concerned, if somebody like Ergon who has been the downspace for this long calls a 51-year-old
I would love to hear your opinion on it. I think for us it was the social engineering aspect along with the time frame of trying to buy tokens to execute a vote to take money to then sell afterwards, like within a very short time frame that comes to that. But I agree with your assessment of how that can be complex.
and some people push back around that as well. I would love to hear your thoughts on what you would define. >> Well, there's a couple of questions I want to get a little bit more here. >> Sure. >> Number of tokens available for voting in the DAB, it was all antholder. So it was the token holders at large, anybody could participate. So it was in, it was in, you buy one and you're allowed to participate. Yes#
What was the quorum threshold required to actually pass a proposal? Oh my god, sorry I have to remember if I had the quorum threshold. Was it 10%, was it 20%, was it higher low? No, it was very low. The time it was 3% and the reason being is because the Dow was only launched two months before that and it was going to be
be iterated on continuously. So that means that, so here's what gets really interesting. Because not all token all this vote at all times, like it's not a validator, like you're not online and actually like programmatically processing votes, a DAO vote that says 15% majority
of a proposal vote, gets to execute a proposal, means that in this case, a little over 1.5% of token holders was all that was needed to execute a proposal. Yeah. So when we talk about a 51% tag, I think there's a couple of things. The implement or not language is one. The second is, it's not 51%.
It's a 1.5% attack. Yeah, totally. And I think that's why, and it's interesting because when we were trying to decide a timeframe, you know, they were constantly pushing like, what's the timeframe on moving the whole treasury over? Our response changed from a timeframe to being like, actually, when it's like sort of mathematically
safe, which was not well taken obviously, but it was like as more ANT is wrapped, the more supply is gone and as we increase quorum, more of the treasury can be secured. So we felt safe with 300 grand at that time. The next one hopefully would have been a higher quorum rate adjusted with more tokens, wrapped,
etc. And that was sort of like the plan. But you're totally right. It was a very, very, very low requirement to do this, to try and take those funds or to get a vote passed, let's say. So there are a couple of ideas floating around the dollar world about how to actually prevent
what I call pigeoning, where you as a outsider, whoever flies over dips in shits and leaves. Right? So I could come in, buy a token, shed in a proposal, propose it. And when I got what I wanted, leave. I have zero long term interest in what you guys are doing.
but I can just pigeon. So it says voting power accumulates with commitment or the holding of a token for a period of time. And so none of these ideas are new. We didn't come up with this. I'm sure Ergonne guys have heard of this, but there are ways to mitigate specific tack factors.
It is not a thing that is easy to implement from day one because it makes things more complicated. And so most does start out with a very simple solution of token equals vote. And then you move on to other
other ways of actually managing. The other, which is direct democracy, leads to fragmentation like this, and all you end up doing is just resolving for drama.
And what we have advocated in origami was the creation of a governance council we call permanent committees. It exists to manage the treasury and the mission and all the things that's necessary.
and direct token holders only have control at specific points in time to elect that representation and to make large changes that are authorized by the charter of the DAW.
And so you can build safeguards, you can build protections for the Dow to protect the mission and the direction of this Dow. What do you think the long-term goals of the Raiders are?
Long term goals. Wow. I mean, just I think it's just revenue. Honestly, I think it's just revenue generation. I think they just want to make as much money as they can as quickly as possible to be frank. That's all I got out of it.
I read a few of their manifestos, some of them are quite brilliant, but I think they're in for cash and they want out. So the belief here is that there's no long-term alignment.
You know, we see an arb and let's go take care of it. 100% there's no 100% there's no alignment. We know that they've told they've many of them have said it's such you know there's quite an open line of communication. So yes.
And other do you have active members of the Dow who are saying hey, I'm not either party. I'm not Ergon. I'm not building an Ergon. I'm a token holder and I oppose this I actually believe that we should build long term and that this short-term Treasury rating has got to stop Yeah a couple people I think the forum now is in a place where it's
like a really deep talk about DeFi and also like this potential buyback. So it's sort of gone into that direction, but yeah we had a lot of support and to be frank, like we did get raked along the calls for our horrible communication, but I did get a lot, we got a lot of just nice kind one-on-one messages from people who had either like had to answer
Unfortunately, be confronted by ARCA or any of these readers before and just other people who sort of were like we get it you made it boo boo. Like, you know, we're with you type thing. So it was really nice to get that as well. We definitely made some mistakes. There's no question I'm not trying to sugarcoat that either.
If you guys had implemented a more of a man in the machine kind of system where it said hey, all proposals that are past still need the approval of a core steward leadership committee to say yes, this aligns with our mission for it to actually continue or some like escrow middle
this is hey unless both parties agree the money gets stuck would that have helped or do you think that from the get go yeah I think it would have been the exact same thing I think it would have like it would have just been like you have a centralized entity blocking a proposal from token holders like I really don't think it would have done done much
to be frank based on how the narrative was going. We do have veto mechanisms in place, but they're very specific. So we have technical like technical guardians, technical guardians, and we have legal guardians. And they have like strict parameters around stopping or pausing anything that can breach something
that could be like seriously have a legal implication or technical implication, but we do not have generalistic guardians who sort of are mission-oriented and the reason that decision was, and maybe that's something we look in the future, but the reason that was is because we wanted code to be law, to be frank. And so that was the decision we made. And to be honest, like the reason we didn't put any
money and then wanted to iterate over time was exactly for this reason was to just have a small amount of money in there to start, add money over time as things became more safe, adjust the quorum, determine if we need these types of guardians that are more mission-lined and adjust. What I don't think we expected, and this is maybe a learning lesson if you're launching a Dow, is like
The the an attack from like a narrative perspective can be very very strong So like people coming in and trying to pressure Treasury decisions one way or another even if it's not on chain executable can be very very strong And so even though we didn't move the 170 million over right away, which was never the best
plan, we did not expect that kind of push and power from an aerobic perspective, having media working with them, etc. So that's a lesson that we learned very, very, very much this time around. I would love to queue up any questions here as well. We're approaching the 45
to work on some playbooks for different types of DAOs, like whether it's a protocol DAO, product DAO, you know a hyper structure that we're trying to build that eventually over time with the correct incentive alignment, which we didn't have at Ergon to be frank, we didn't have incentive alignment. Like core teams own very few tokens, a lot of tokens as I mentioned are gone from 2017, they're in different hands, we have some
DCs. So if token alignment is really strong, you can have token-weighting voting doubts for sure, and some of them seem to be moving in a good direction. So I really think, and we do say experimenting with governance at the speed of software, this is another lesson learned. This is something we can build off of. Hopefully we can share some of this information together.
community and they can build off it as well. And like, we're only a few years old. Let's not forget like this entire space is a really, really young. Like governance hasn't been figured out outside of the down space completely let alone inside and humans have existed for a very long time. So we're just going to keep learning. The day we don't
don't come back from something like this is the day maybe we need to be more worried. But that's our plan. And we're going to have the funds currently programmatically designed at a regular interval for it to be dripped into the Dow or is this at the discussion of the association? It was
more based off of parameters. So like if we reached a certain amount of wrapped tokens, so then it became more difficult obviously to do an attack like this, we can move the quorum up and then move more funds and this was the way we have to rethink this now to be frank, like we're going back to the drawing board. Actually, we have some cool ideas. We are 100% committed to being in a Dow actually maybe even
even moving this time frame up by using other mechanisms. And hopefully we can share that in the next few weeks. But we're going to make right for sure. We're going to have Luis, the founder of our gun join us in a few minutes. He's running behind because of an important phone call. But before we come back into the mechanics of whether this
was a raid or not and what happened during it. One of the things that I heard from people was that you all were deleting comments. There's one person who said he had a comment asking about Dow.e that Argonne owns it and will it be open and he said this was deleted. Another people that had similar experiences were you getting a little
was there reason for it? You cut out their anger, but I think it was just overreach in our part, just overreach from trying to defend what we thought was right on social media and we overdid it. And that's why we sent that up.
I see. Yeah. So it wasn't even people who are necessarily part of this group. It was anyone who you felt was threatening both the Dow and individuals within the Dow. And so you were just going in and deleting
I'm assuming some people I don't know I wasn't the lead I'm assuming some people got caught up in the in the crossfires because we had a long list of the people in the RFE a radar group and so some people maybe got caught out and again total apologies to these people we
We're trying to defend what we thought was right and we made some mistakes. There's no question about it. Okay, and as you said the community is or the discord and the community forums are not the Dow. I get that. What was going on internally? Like how do you all communicate when this happens and how do you how do you make sure that you
keep your senses together in the future. That's a really good question. Honestly, like, yeah, I have to admit, like, there was a team, sort of a team that came together. Many sleepless nights trying to like do research, trying to find out who these people were, trying to figure out what they want, like game theory, like, you
How can we defend this? How can we defend this narrative? It's quite stressful. I don't know if anybody else is being in this situation, but you'll get a message from a news outlet. They'll say, "You have two hours to answer all these questions. Otherwise, it's no comment." Then you're like, "Oh my God, if it's no comment, people are going to think we're trying to avoid something."
when you're scrambling to answer these questions and fire them back and then they get twisted. To be honest, again, we made mistakes, but I lost a lot of faith in some of the media and crypto Twitter. I was pretty disappointed and bummed out, but a lot of it was of our own making, of course.
All right, we got Luis and he is going to get the speaking role in a moment. Let's see if we can bring him in. While we're doing that, if anyone can help out by supporting this chat and sharing it by hitting that bottom right, let let people know we're in a new group. We had about a thousand people before and I think some of them think that the
group was ended for some reason. It's here. I'd love for you to share it and I appreciate those of you who have. Who is thanks for coming in here? Yeah, I'm a brilliant surfor. I mean, late. It's been really hectic, base. I can imagine how much of this, how inside were you as this was going on?
Oh my god. Well, I'm in a lot of bad day for the last couple of years, but I've been advising you're in a different contribution ecosystem. But of course, when something like this happens, in the other day, I feel that everyone is still my baby. And I see that little eagle and that brand that would be out in my heart.
hard breaks when I see these things, especially because all the effort we put back in the day to be like the leader in transparency will literally kept like a transparent support or where we could document each expense. I mean at some point they were ridiculous so we stopped but like we would do that. We would really like make sure that we contribute back with a
We actually founded the first team working on a theory on 2.0 client, even before the Cedar Foundation did. So yeah, we usually do a lot of work back in the day. And sometimes it hurts to see how little memory crypto Twitter can have.
I have a question for you. What is the crux of the problem in aligning the short term and long term incentive of members of the Dow? Well, so I'm sure I'm going to re-emback the whole situation, but I think the argument that the decision
this massive treasury. And honestly this treasury sometimes it feels like the pirates of the Caribbean like gold from Mother River for what it was but it was like you know it was completely hounded and like you know everyone that the person who that's they could like go completely rogue and whatever. Sometimes it feels like that like it feels that sometimes there is just too much
money and you have to care about doing too many things because like you're always anxious about what else could you do right and so like you're starting to ingrance and you kind of like create a lot of scope and you hire people and the problem also is not only that you kind of like was focused and you have to like care about managing the stress rate responsibly
is that also when you want transition to a DAO, in this case where the treasury value is higher than the, that, you know, ANT's market cup, there is a very clear incentive for someone to come in and use by a bunch of tokens and steal the money. And so this is a problem that has been known theoretically.
for a while as a 51% attack, but now it's practical. Now there are people out there that do these things. I'm not saying this thing that happened the last week was that because there actually wasn't like per se an active 51% attack. There were some talks about about
how to protect and support. It didn't actually happen. But like, those have to really be prepared for this scenarios. But most importantly, when you're installing long-term and installing them, I believe that you need something like VToken, like VKR or VVAL or all these like VToken strategies.
is where you basically lock people up for four years to become governors of the doubt. I do think that makes a lot of sense when it comes to incentives. And then if you can tie that up, it's some kind of north star metric. So people lock their tokens and also they have some kind of reward governance award tied to that north star.
North Star Metri going up for somebody can be like you know a month of our own doubts or like AUM in our own doubts or whatever and then you can tie that up then people have the incentive to be here for the long haul and to contribute to the project's future instead of you like taking the money going home. So yeah, that's my two Satoshi I guess right?
I think you have a lot more tools than the other thing is as we're builders in the space with you like we are always discovering new ideas to mitigate a specific vector of attack or specific or a problem, but it's usually after an event like this has occurred because every crisis has
has the same root, but they always play out in a different way. And to actually go back and say, OK, what can we have engineered? What code could we have written? What community standard could we have created to prevent attacks like this from happening in the future? You still have to go through and suffer through what we have now.
If you give short term raiders what they want.
Are we creating an incentive or bad incentive for people to repeat that action in the future? I mean, definitely, if you're doing that, definitely. I think the best strategy you can take is to, I mean, if people are sort of the end-raters, then you're going to do much.
But if some of these people, you know, you can present them with an option to either exit or be here in the long haul, I think that would be a better idea. Like they are now with governance. The particular issue with hallowed governance is the implementation for for boring power.
So in this case you will buy MT, you will lock it, get WANT which is grab the MT, and you are good to go, you can vote. And this is even susceptible to stuff like leg-flashbacks where you don't need to enter in the central section, grab something.
Then, what without your tokens, so you go to all that threshold, take money out, give tokens back in this intersection. Literally, you can do that. With V, AMD, or VVAL, or whatever, like the P token model, you cannot do that. And so again, I'm really a fan of Dan McKinney-Sim.
Andrew, should we take some questions from the group?
I love it. If anyone wants to speak, just request the microphone and we'll see if we can bring you up. I know some of you have talked openly what I'm looking at you. I'd love to hear your voice in this if you're open to it. In fact, I'm just going to give you the ability to speak. So, going forward, Anthony.
And Luis, are we now looking at a situation where money will be put into the treasury or not? Will the rest of the money be put in or not? And if it is, what needs to happen? I mean, from my perspective, I will tell you I'm completely holding for that. I've been for years.
For some time it's been about legal travel, so turning money from a centralized legal entity to a DAO that is out there in the wild, that's how a legal personality. Now it's more about the technicality of actually making it happen without all the front-earth installed, but from my perspective,
What I've been talking about and what I've been telling the the arrogant contributors is if we cannot do it then we don't deserve to be the leaders of the space. And like you know, I don't think you're in like I think it's north of like 11 or like $2.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000000.000.000000.000000.000000.000000.#
in AUM for different doubts, like light upgraded yesterday to V2 and light has like 11 billion dollars secure by our even OS contracts. If they can do it, got them it, we can, we can secure 200 million just now with a solution and implement it and you know you stake the fact in role of the leaders of the space that we are.
And the way to do that is what in your opinion, how do you do that right in Anthony? I'd love to hear from you too. If I went to that, I'm going to spend like half an hour talking about talking on mixed ideas, but I mean, I just posted in the argument forum, but there are ways. There are ways and the current our own stack is really good. The all one.
that has been like securing billions of dollars, also really good, really composable and entrepreneur missions. You can really create complex governance structures. So it's a matter of really like sitting down and making proposals. And yeah, I mean, there are so many tools to take compared to like five years ago when we first thought about decentralizing the first three.
Anthony, I saw you unmuting yourself. What were you going to add to that? Yeah, just complete agreement with Luis. We're definitely dog fooding our products. It's super, super important. It's the only way we're going to get there. It's the only way we're going to be leaders and
We're working with and what our users need. It's a high high priority. Everybody on the team is completely in agreement with that. We're looking forward to that. It was a shame that we just had to put it on a little bit of pause the last few days.
after that first amount of USDC was moved into the Dow, but we're already brainstorming with Louise, for example, on the future and some great ideas. So we're super excited for that, of course. It's a requirement.
Okay, and Luis we were asking earlier Anthony coming in from the beginning if somebody is is building a doubt today and they want to prepare themselves for situations like this, what are some messages
that you'd leave them with. How did they prepare themselves for what you've been calling a 51% attacker or our gunhouse, but then pointed out that even with 1.5% I think you said then, there could be an attack.
How do others deal with this? I mean, it's not the first doubt that I think has this problem of having a tertiary that is bigger than the Marnie Cup of the token. And I think if you look at the very core issue, it used to be that way in the first place, right? This is really like...
your trust rate should be lower and then you're talking to get a premium use because you have like that quote unquote execution premium you have like a product distribution you have like premium models whatever governance utility like you know like uniswap with the protocol fee like even if it's zero it's valuable because it can be turned on and that is the premium so at all times
is the territory to be lower than the territory plus the premium. Basically, I think you've just got to work on that and I think some of the solutions that we're going to come up with are actually going to be quite valuable for the DAO. Ultimately, this is quite good for Ergon. In the sense that when we said, "All right, we are going to move the funds to DAO, we are
going to be at our sales because otherwise it doesn't make sense. We were expecting some problems and like dog food and cornstrap problems that ultimately like you go through the pain and then you understand the key problems in the cases and then you productize them and you make the best products because you like went through hell leaving that problem yourself. So if you know the problems so well you can create the best solution.
Usually when you see a stock and its market cap is actually lower than the actual value of the assets, what the market is saying is that it has no confidence in the future of that company. Now, it's a utility token, so these things are totally different.
How well do you think the public or the market is actually able to determine the value of the assets of the treasury versus the actual token value? What is that message being sent to you and how do you read that?
I mean, the message of course right now that the market is sending is quite pessimistic and there are execution of all the different guilds and encounters with the Nargon. And I think that is a very core thing to solve. But like, I think that is too cited. Like on one hand,
And right now the yields are focused on product and not smart and revenue or like kind of like talking value sync generation. But at the same time, I do think now that should be really a priority.
And you can do this query, of course, because you could plot yourself from building a good product. Sometimes they say, kind of like in the web to play, you have like create a product and then once you have like some product market feed and you can say we're in a revenue. But like in this world, it's a bit different when you really have token life.
You kind of have to care about those things beforehand and you have to be a learning ecosystem and you have to empower people. So, yeah, I mean, right now I think things will go like hand by hand and I also think that like running for like five years and having this over running for five years.
and kind of like, you know, those are the security of the dollars. I think we already got like a pretty good chance of, you know, why are the things that kind of monetize for people, what do people want to pay for, or is take for in this industry, if you are allowed. So yeah, I think it's a matter of like really focusing on that.
Alright, I'd like to close these spaces out by just thinking about the future here. So why don't we go with all three of you, Anthony, the future for our gun. If we were to come back, say three to five years from now, what are you envision and then what are you envision for dying?
If everything goes as you're working to achieve. Yeah, I think that's why this last two weeks was so painful for me because our team, which is a relatively newer team, has really come together.
and launch this new tech stack that is starting to look really, really promising. I've had conversations now with $15 billion in AUM of DAOs that are interested in moving over to the new tech stack with a little bit more product market fit and with some more additions to it. So I'm really, really excited.
about the future of air gun and our products. That's adding privacy to that, which is going to be huge privacy for for doubt members and does themselves. This is going to be an absolutely pivotal moment for Dows and their autonomy in the future as well as some of the
We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot of things. We're working on a lot#
able to succeed. And that's my hope. And if that happens in three to five years, I'll be over the moon. And then someone who's also building in the space, both software and helping to grow dolls, ideally, three or five years from now, look ahead and show us the vision.
I think the challenge you're running into is that
We have an incredible technological opportunity in front of us. And many of us have actually ran forward with the technology. And there's some brilliant builders in the space without understanding the social implications. And as a person who's built software companies and built software myself, it's a little bit crazy to say this.
If we are not able to create a social norm, a communications platform, a way of aligning people's interests outside of the software, then the software as a tool, as it always has been, will be misused.
And so from three to five years, I'm really hoping that there are social norms that the community actually has the better powers of self-enforcement outside of the software so that the software does not always have to defend itself from the people that it reports to serve.
And so there is some amount of technological issue of risk that I think Dow's from day one with the Dow have just kind of fallen on his face on. And I think we continue to ignore the human side of things. And we need to recognize that unless we match
the ability for people to align themselves from an idea and from a goal perspective that the software will always need to be bloated and will need to be thinking about too many ways of defending versus building. Then when we talk about it in other origami Twitter spaces,
people say, well, then it's no longer autonomous, it's no longer software. If you give any power to individuals, what do you say to that? You know, the founder of our company. Yeah, there's this kind of myth of decentralization and I get to say a lot because I've seen the spectrum of this and you tell everyone, you
So, the community has an actually said, what are we doing this for? And so, in that gap of confusion, if
If somebody has a short-term interest and actually can rile up the crowd, that's exactly what happens. And it is very difficult to get that communication alignment done because a lot of doubts, I think, lack true leadership to actually get those hard conversations out there.
I think that's fair and it's honest and for some people's insistence on having everything happen on software It's painful to hear but it's worth bringing up. Who's what about you? What do you think about what Ben just said?
Yeah, I mean, in a complete sense, when it comes to software and social incentives, they're so intertwined. Like software in a way that finds, especially like stuff like that, so some norms and boundaries and to some extent incentivizes back some kind of culture. But in culture in itself can also save
rules. So I think they are used very intertwined and we're going to show off a blue soon during the next 3-5 years. I do think though that like a very modular stack like the one other one has built like it was too advanced and a bit too complex for back
in the day for like 2017, 2018, 2019 because like there were almost no doubts out there and the doubts that were out there were very simple. So there was not like a lot of, you know, kind of like pro market fitters in those years, but then as we have doubts that require more and more kind of like complexity and permission systems and like more
complex social structures it are to define, a light or curve, contour mine. Then I think we need to scan our systems because they enable us to really experiment with software governance, this bit of software. And yeah, I think if we build the tools and we keep the mask on, it's going to be ready for humankind.
I'm going to close this out by bringing it back to people. One of the things that I've appreciated about Anthony from Argonne, about Argonne and Luis and so many other people here in this space, but especially you Anthony, is this your belief in growing this Dow world despite any criticism from other people despite the fact that you and
I didn't know each other. You reached out to me. You helped me do pretty Twitter spaces in the past helped bring awareness to other dows. And today you could have just said, I don't want to be a part of this Andrew. I don't know what you're about. I don't trust you. I don't want to be attacked by more people. But instead you said, I'm going to trust this relationship that I have with Andrew and orig#
to trust that what I am doing here is the best of my ability and I'm going to be as open as possible and you were and Luis you said you've taken some space from this but you've come back in because you believe in the same mission and I appreciate that so much about the two of you and about the community and about others who've been in this space. Thank you so much for doing this. We will be
doing more Twitter spaces about this, Twitter will keep crashing and we will have to keep finding ways around it. So the best way for now is if you follow origami, if you follow the speakers Anthony the Wies, Ben hot, you'll be able to see what we're up to as we're continuing to build this decentralized future even if it doesn't pass some people's purity
test, it will be a better world if we work hard and achieve that. Thank you everyone. Yeah. And I'll leave you with one more word. If you are launching a Dow, if you are having any leadership role in the Dow, it is imperative that you repeat the mission and the purpose of why you are there or why people should be there. And I think people
people forget that at not everybody reads the contracts or the docs or the messages. And without that North Star, I think we make room for arbitrage. And I think that's our flaw as leaders, even though we made the screen with arbitrages they're doing. At the end of the day, if you're not aligned in the mission, they will tear the dial apart.
Great place to leave it. Thank you then. Thank you everyone. Bye. We'll see you in Twitter. Thanks for having us. Thank you so much everybody. Anthony Louise, great to meet you for the first time. I hope Wifi was on the better circumstances, but I really appreciate your honesty here. Live with Live with and by the way, your personal one here now.
has more questions about whatever the history of our goal in the future or whatever, like I'm happy to chat again not in both day to day but like I think I'm not very amount of a defost and the things that would be back in the day to gain the hearts of this space and I just hope it keeps being that way.
Thanks for doing that. I've seen that you've seen you do that with me and others. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Bye. Thanks everybody.