Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
DeSci Office Hours
Recorded: July 2, 2025 Duration: 1:01:18Space Recording
Short Summary
In a recent discussion, crypto enthusiasts explored innovative governance models for DAOs, emphasizing the importance of community engagement and the integration of AI technologies. The conversation highlighted emerging trends in decentralized science, including the launch of a new paper on delegated voting and the potential for strategic partnerships to enhance decision-making processes.
Full Transcription
Thank you. GM, GM.
Oh, yeah. Let's get the whole gang in here. Hey Joe.
Hey Kehoe.
Greetings good people. Thank you.
Greetings, good people.
How's it going, Joe?
Yeah, super, thanks.
How are you?
Doing well.
You know, just about mid-morning here in Chicago.
Beautiful weather the last couple of days. Can't complain. I'm kind of cooped up in an office writing, but, you know, I can see outside that it seems to be pretty nice. So that's enough for me for right now.
Beautiful. That sounds stunning.
Keo, how's it going, buddy? My co-host, the king.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Awesome. Yeah, I've been trying to navigate through this because I'm'm also behind the molecule host uh so kind of managing
both accounts to come online yeah i'm doing good guys how are you guys doing can't complain my
friends living the dream awesome awesome yeah that's how it should be cool yeah let's kick this off I'm Kehoe I'm reporting from India
half past eight in the evening yeah the weather is quite rainy and 24 degrees celsius yeah and
24 degrees Celsius.
Yeah.
And I think this is one of my favorite weathers, monsoon,
because when you hear raining, people usually think that, you know,
raining for a couple of hours, but monsoons are quite different
where it would pour for days and days.
Oh, my goodness sometimes throughout a week it keeps pouring so yeah and I kind of enjoy this you like it yeah yeah
all right yeah Karlyn where are you reporting and how is it going yeah so i'm i'm the other host of the show here carlin i'm reporting from
chicago um it's 10 10 a.m what's the temperature like 76 degrees fahrenheit and uh it's a little
bit of an overcast day there's some clouds but actually it's relatively sunny um which
i like a rainy day too,
but now that it's like summertime Chicago,
this is kind of what you moved here for basically.
So it's great.
Awesome, awesome.
Yeah, so this is gonna probably one of our last
DSi office hours, but then DSi hours on Wednesday we're gonna move this to
Monday so all right yeah from next week onwards we're gonna have this same DSI
office hours coming to you guys on Monday I think around at 4 p.m. CET. So we'll make the announcement after this, after the space.
So yeah, mark your calendars again. You guys heard it here first. Exactly. That's going to be our
regular from now on because we found like more people wanted to change the time to that particular
time spot and we are also happy to move this.
And today I want to bring something up like a topic of discussion as we always have something this week i want to discuss about governance in dsai which is not often spoken of
i think i also know carlin has also been quite lately involved with
evaluating governance proposals in a couple of dOs. And we also published a paper very recently,
me, Karlyn, and a couple more colleagues from Molecule. We published a paper on
delegated voting, sort of a liquid democracy for DAO governance. So yeah, so let's kick this off.
And if anyone wants to step in
and introduce yourself to the audience,
please request to speak.
I'll bring you up on stage.
So we have Neurojo here.
Yeah.
Yeah, Joe, maybe introduce yourself a little bit.
Perfect, yeah.
I am Joe from South Africa.
We are in the Western Cape here,
so it's the typical overcast, rainy winter situation.
I think today's temperature is about 11 degrees Celsius,
so fresh, but wonderful.
I am a Desai Edu Cohort graduate, which is very exciting.
And Colin was my direct mentor, and Kiho and I met up at Desai Berlin, so super thrilled to step into the space.
I see some of my fellows as well.
Shout out to all of you. Pleasure to be in the space. I see some of my fellows as well. Shout out to all of you.
Pleasure to be in the space with you again.
And yeah, see some familiar faces.
Wonderful that there's kind of these regular pop-ups.
Beautiful guys, let's build.
Awesome, awesome.
Yeah, I had a wonderful conversation with Joe
at DSi Berlin.
I think DSi Berlin overall was a blast.
I think this time I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Last time I was a newbie.
It felt different.
And this time I got to sit on a panel with Bharat
and another guy from DSi-ed-U, Andrew. So we kind of
discussed about the same thing, like how does it feel to get onboarded into DSi.
And I was very happy that conversation was, you know, a little more, let's say, spicy and candid because we didn't really prepare anything.
Yeah, exactly. We didn't prepare anything.
And we agreed upon this because when you think of any panels, it's mostly, you know, people who didn't get a speaker spot, they are clocked together to sit on a panel.
And then usually they just speak, you know, safe terms.
Like they don't really discuss anything that is, you know, really interesting in terms of things that are spicy enough, right?
So it's always a safe play.
And most of the time it's orchestrated.
You have the questions before you get prepared and go there.
This time we wanted to do it a little different.
That's sort of
part of the experiment.
Desai is all about experimentation.
We experimented this
and we really received
some great feedbacks
that people enjoyed it.
If you guys missed it,
I'll link our YouTube
session on DSAI Berlin day two. You guys can go watch this panel. If you are someone new to DSAI,
I think this gives you this wonderful overarching view of what DSI is and how does it feel and where can you find these you know places to get integrated and initiated into DSI yeah with that let's get into the topic
of the day governance okay what is governance to you Karlyn from a scientist perspective
and also from the de-scientist perspective, what is governance to you?
Governance to me?
Hmm.
I think I, you know, I first learned control, but more of the like decision making.
I think I feel like it's, you know, sort of the decision making sort of framework that many, many DSi like, you know, entities have been trying to utilize. And it seems really great
because it's like, oh, cool. The reason I'm putting in on this project is so that I can,
you know, take part in some of this governance. But I think that as I've, you know, come to
understand what it actually takes to govern a little bit more, I think of, you know, mayors,
like there's the mayor of Chicago,
people say that he's a, he's a great guy, but he's not great at governing. I, you know,
I think that there are a lot of, let's say,
synchronicities, like, idiosyncrasies that are not necessarily in alignment with like how the pace of Desai moves
and with like the actual, you know, constitution that you set out when you start to govern.
But yeah, I think it is, you know, one of the major selling points when you first come in,
but maybe is a little bit tougher to deliver on in,
you know, in like a practical sense. But what are your thoughts on it, Q?
I sometimes hear this word, like people usually associate governance to utility. But if you look,
primarily governance is not a utility. It's what the token holds. With token, you have some intrinsic values. One is it has a monetary value and it has certain powers which you can exercise with that token, which is basically a derivative of token is governance. we have seen people pitching governance right as a utility uh i think that's just a facade um
it is not a real utility and also if you dig deeper into governance like um it is it is not
about governing it's it's it just ends like within the dow dci context, it just ends with voting on a proposal, but then you don't get the downstream effects
of governing what happens with the project
in terms of execution and all of that.
So it's just about voting yes or no for a proposal,
whether it happens or not.
And then I think it's also a very primitive approach, in my opinion, just getting a signal of yes or no.
Probably if you would add other signals to it, like if you say yes, you could then say why yes.
If you say no, why no?
This would then give you a lot more clarity on you know the the voting or the governance part
of it so i think we are in a very you know a primitive stage of using governance in dsci
to its extent but then this was the most attractive feature for me when i got into DSi because I was really sold when, you know,
they said like you contribute to the DAO or you buy these tokens or you contribute to
the science, then what you get in return is the power to, you know, control science or
to govern science or the direction of the science, where it goes. But then if you look deeper, exactly, the power is, it's enticing.
That's what really got me into this, you know,
because that's what we lack, actually.
Everyone lives for power.
And that really enticed me to get into this.
But then you start digging start digging deeper into this, then you see, right, you actually don't hold like ultimate power or like power using your token.
So my final take on token-based governance, I'm not like talking about governance on hold, just token-based governance which is a primitive that's been followed in most
of the DAOs. I think it really does not resonate in representing the voice of
the token holders rather what it promotes as I see is plutocracy where if
you have like you know more money buy more
tokens you have more power and influence which is which is what happens in in in in our real society
as well so it's no different if you see it like from a from a wider lens um this is what happens
right so i think it's it's very important to bring this up,
like this particular governance issue,
because I think this is sort of a heartbeat of any DSI movement,
because when you say you are decentralizing science,
that means we are kind of promoting this notion that everyone gets a say or a voice in what matters to them or to the collective community.
But then the question is, does our current governance mechanisms really work in that way to get that voice or represent that voice coming out of the community?
That's a big question. So I think with this, let's say sort of a pretext to start into this
conversation, I would want to like, you know, dig more about that particular paper that you and I got involved in, which was very interesting to me
because delegated voting as a mechanism is interesting. So for our listeners here, can you
briefly explain what is delegated voting and what are new possibilities does it open for
the dsi space or the dows to govern and if anyone has a question on the way like please feel free
to raise your hands it's not a a dialogue between us so we are just like kind of navigating the show. And if you guys have any
questions, jump into the conversation, please feel free to do so, because that is what the
office hours are meant for. Yeah. On to you, Karlin. Yeah. So, you know, explain from a high
level, like delegated governance is sort of using the amount of percentage of token or amount of personal power that you have, personal voting power.
You can sort of assign that power to a trusted entity.
Let's say you're in a DAO and a governance proposal is coming up and it's about
a topic that you're not very well versed in. But there's someone who holds much of the token who
is considered an expert in this field and you're like, oh, I don't know how to vote, but whatever
they vote I think is going to be the right thing. You can then sort of, you know, choose to like stake your, your vote or your amount of token as, you know, it will vote in
the same way you're like your percentage of the vote will then go toward what the, you know,
this like key, key expert that you've selected will be. And I think that this sort of came
from what we, you know we learned in the paper,
as we were doing research for the paper is that these sort of frameworks came up
as a consequence of low voter turnout. A lot of the like, you know, these proposals and like what
we're saying, I think people may be being disenchanted with the sort of like yes, no proposal, maybe not as much like
actual active contribution and hearing like they're being heard or able to drive in like
these community driven efforts is leading to some of that low voter turnout. But this delegated way
of governing, I think I like it because it, you know, it gives people a little bit more of a say.
They're still sort of at the whim of, you know, the higher powers that be, the more expert people.
But I think that if they are able to do it in a way that's like, I'm doing this because I trust or, you know, know that this person does their, does a good job and I'm not being,
uh, not having like the rug pulled out from under me. Um, that I think will be, you know, a major,
um, maybe way to like win back the incentive of governance to people.
people.
Yeah, I would also like to add a couple more points to what Karlyn clearly, you know,
lined out here.
The primary reason that we looked into this as Karlin outlined is voter apathy, because most people, if we are being honest to ourselves,
they have a daily job and they have other things to do.
So they might not have either the expertise or time to look into all these
proposals just because they bought their tokens to come and vote on every
decision. So I think always the best governance is minimal governance.
So in that perspective, having this sort of delegated voting, you can imagine like voting
on like regular elections within your state where you have constituencies and members from representatives for each constituents
who kind of represents your vote. So here these delegates for whom you delegate your voting
will represent your voice in the proposal. So instead of let's say 200 token holders
So instead of, let's say, 200 token holders voting on a proposal, it'll be, you know, kind of streamlined down to 10 delegates representing the 200 token holders voting on this. representatives or delegates can then get feedback from their particular constituencies
and members in their constituency.
And then I think this kind of streamlines this.
But then we also figured out there are possible attack vectors here where, you know, like
the delegates could collude and...
You always have your corrupt politician.
Exactly.
You know, only what is in their interest.
Exactly.
But I think, you know, even being able to play a part in like selecting the delegates,
I think is a huge win back for, you know, a little bit of the autonomy that we're looking for in these structures.
Exactly. Yeah.
I think AI agents in a way would help us streamline some of these tasks in choosing these delegates.
What I mean is like you could then build a reputation layer within the DAO or within the community for people who are active in, you know, communicating the message or contributing to the DAO or helping the community members or having that
expert knowledge that is needed to, you know, really make the decision.
So I would say like we could see more sort of an hybrid protocol, hybrid voting systems where, you know, very key decisions on scientific projects
and, you know, anything related to science and deal flow is primarily, you know, decided by the
experts, expert delegates who knows what the stuff is. then you can also like then um delegate most sort of like
protocol level decisions to uh funders who are most interested in you know uh to in in
in order to know what happens with their money right like so in in in a way we could segregate
this and make it more interesting.
But then AI can help us in gauging something that is interesting, which is emotion of the community.
Because yes or no is basically a signal which doesn't really give out the emotion on the proposal.
that proposal sometimes discussions and comments and reviews on these proposal gives some sort of
emotion or vibe on the community of the on the proposal of the community on the proposal so
i think ai agents could come in and play in in terms of getting that emotion using keywords
using keywords, what's the emotion on particular proposal, on a particular delegate, or also
like automating this whole thing, right?
Like when you have a token, you could then see like your representatives with a bunch
of reputation, and you can also wait and see how they behave and perform within the community.
Do you see them often helping people, being active there, answering
questions for people? So then also their expertise and then delegate your voting.
I think this could all be possible, possibly automated in the future with air agents like
completely managing the governance process with minimal, you know minimal human interference on loop where all the quality
level decision making is left for the humans to make. And then all the quantitative metric
tracking could be then delegated to AI agents. The less fun stuff. Yeah. Exactly.
I really like the idea of like a vibe check AI. I know that there's a ton of like those reputation sort of chain projects, at least going on right now for people that how they post on like Twitter, how much they post on X and stuff like that.
It would be really cool if we could like get that going for just like sentiments of a discord.
And then regularly it has like a daily or weekly like report on like what the vibes are.
I love that.
That's definitely something that I would love to see in the future.
So yeah, I'm currently working on a constitution proposal for microbiome DAO of course. Yeah I wanted to
ask any sort of implementations you're planning for microbiome DAO that's in
this like delegated governance structure? Exactly yeah we have something
like this but it's a little more profound in a way that we are aiming for
progressive decentralization and not decentralizing from the beginning.
So it's going to stay centralized for, let's say, an year or so, mostly controlled by the founding team and the DAO core, the working groups.
But then the idea is to slowly and progressively decentralize to reach a place where the structure that I see right now, or I'm kind of drafting currently, looking at a bunch of different successful models, avoiding Moloch traps and all of that.
how it looks you have a top a guardian council sort of which is consisting of three members
max you can make it five so so they don't really have like absolute power or anything any sort of
power over this but they are sort of like you know goodwill stewards for the project. So this could be advisors, members from founding team, or like
the token holders, or like the whales, right? So this forms the Guardian Council,
and then you have something called Reputation Council. So the Reputation Council is where it gets super interesting. So these are folks who
retire from either working group or as leads or work or from the Guardian Council. So there is
like a clear representation on how many seats for each categories. And then you also have like a
couple of representations from communities and ambassadors.
So in this way, like you don't have to really run elections at DAO level or community level.
Instead, what you could do is like allocate it to each of the working groups to decide whom are they nominating to that particular spot.
Because that working group knows who contributed, know most or well to that so basically it's a collective decision coming out of that particular working group deciding
who's going to represent in the in this reputation council and the only power the reputation council
has is they behave as some sort of dispute resolution committee.
They don't really interfere in voting process.
They are just there to resolve disputes.
And also they have special veto rights in certain cases.
But then the most interesting governance layer is
we kind of split this into three one science um two funding
three uh community so so experts within the community can have five science delegates and
capital institutional funders within the community can have five delegates. And then community members who are super active,
either contributors or, you know,
doing a bunch of other different tasks and being active can have five delegates.
So these 15 delegates will then vote on every proposal.
And yeah, so they will make the decision.
So this is kind of, you know,
there is a lock-in mechanisms for each of this so that no one can override.
You know, there are different levels of quality checks at different levels.
Checks and balances, gotta have them. Exactly, exactly.
Gotta have them.
Yeah, so it's not like the whales controlling or the founding team controlling over it or neither the community having complete control over it.
or the founding team controlling over it or neither the community having complete control over it.
In a way, if you see it might end up in having a net zero power,
but then there is a positive sum power if you are a good actor.
If you are really contributing, you get to go earn these positions on top
and then we'll be able to either make decisions.
But then you cannot be the sole decision maker.
If you look at the current governance model,
if you are a whale, you kind of override.
You can override the decision of the rest of the community.
We saw this in VitaDAO happening
and there are also like other good examples.
Yeah, so far, this is just a new thing
that I've been working on.
If any of you guys are interested to,
you know, come comment on it
or, you know, are interested in governance,
want to contribute to it,
feel free to jump in or send me a DM. I'll add you guys to the doc. You guys can come, add comments or give me feedbacks.
But then I want to like slowly steer this conversation into something.
Two case studies are like real examples. What's happening in the current DAOs or the D-psi ecosystem
do you have some bunch of examples for good governance and bad governance
in mind Karlin me me uh I don't know I'm not putting you
before we uh before we fully move on though I wanted to ask a question about sort of the microbiome structure that you laid out.
I think that the multilayer, like with multiple different avenues of checks and balances is really cool.
But it sounds to me like it is going to take a lot of people.
a lot of people um do you maybe envision like a minimum amount of what's like the lowest amount
of people that need to be in these like you know delegate positions and like how many do you
envision them you know their constituency being as well sort of for this yeah so you have so in
in my understanding as i said, the idea is to progressively
decentralize.
So it's not going to kick in from day one, when you just have like 10 active members
and 300 silent members.
So this is going to kick in once you have at least minimum of 50 active contributors.
So 50 is the threshold. Once you have 50 active participants
or like active contributors,
then you need around 15 delegates
to kind of run the system.
And then all these delegates have a cap
on expiry of their delegate positions.
And they cannot simply just become a delegate.
They should hold a threshold level of
tokens to really like you know apply for delegate because they need to have the skin in the game
you gotta be able to stake right exactly and then this is sort of like you know as a check mechanism
for people to step in and then this could be also like scaled down or scaled up.
Now it is for like 555 from science funding scientists,
which can be experts.
You can call it as expert community.
And then you have one which is funders who are primarily there for the financial gains.
And next part is the community.
So these three groups or three sections can either have three delegates each or five delegates each or seven.
They can scale it based on the size of the community and the size of the constituency.
And yeah.
I like that it scales.
Exactly.
I feel like that you're being transparent about it not being decentralized at first.
I think that that's a pitfall that a lot of people, you know, they try to decentralize
before they've got the, like, you know, the numbers in this, the, like, infrastructure
to be able to support a fully decentralized system.
So it's cool that you're like hey we need to build
a central structure before we can then you know spread our wings uh for this decentralized sort
of method cool exactly i think true decentralization is a myth carlin uh i don't buy it i gotta tell
you i agree i i uh these you know at the end of the day, you're still centralized to whatever chain you're on.
You know what I'm saying?
No matter how decentralized that is.
Exactly.
Yeah.
So let's accept the honest realities and then, you know, build based on that.
So look in the mirror.
We can change.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And if you see any existing DAOs,
none of these DAOs,
like even the OG DAOs,
not just in Deci, be it DeFi or whatever,
none of these DAOs are decentralized.
So it just calls itself
a decentralized autonomous organization because
it is distributed in different uh be it different uh states or different time zones and all of that
but they are not truly decentralized uh to be honest someone we still love them though even
if they're not uh not decentralized exactly any doubtless any doubt listeners we still love them though even if they're not uh not decentralized exactly any dow list any
dow listeners we still love you exactly we love you we are here to perfect yeah to get better
that's that's where the conversation is going right like the idea is to make it better because
we are in this game because we love what dow's are for. And this brings me to an interesting post
that Jo made on LinkedIn.
I also commented on it.
She had a couple of questions.
Jo, why don't you bring this up?
Then we'll try to brainstorm on the questions that you had.
Wow, calling me out in the group chat.
Yes, cool.
So I think, you know, coming from a science background
and really being disgruntled by the rose-tinted glasses
by the rose-tinted glasses that I had stepping into academic research,
that I had stepping into academic research,
being super enthusiastic and curious about science
and about how the world around us works,
and realizing that academia...
Can you still hear?
This notion of who owns knowledge or knowledges in their plurality because they are knowledge.
And then that leads to the second question of who creates knowledges, who disseminatesates them who participates in them and and the third question is what yeah i couldn't hear you is it the same with you carlin or is it Can you hear me now?
Yes, and it just breaks sometimes.
Carlin, how is it?
How is it for you? Can you hear?
I think I'll just repeat, maybe.
Thanks. Yeah, please.
Okay, cool.
I'm not sure where you lost me,
but really just grappling with this concept
of who produces knowledges
and who is able to consume them, who has access who produces knowledges and who is able to
consume them, who has access to those knowledges, who disseminates them.
I'll drop you a message maybe, or you can just, yeah, operate from my LinkedIn post, please, Kiho.
No, I heard it.
I was able to hear you.
The problem was Karlyn also lost it.
He was also reconnecting.
But then I heard your question.
So the question was,
who is kind of generating this knowledge and who was absorbing this knowledge and in the middle
who is owning and getting the maximum benefit out of this knowledge transfer process am i correct
all right yeah so let's let's if you try to break it down um logically i think academia like in terms of the the traditional science engine which
pumps a lot of funding and money and primarily these institutions were created to disseminate
knowledge as a commodity right for the public the public, as a public good.
But then the system got hacked eventually
during this process of, you know,
throughout the long years of science making
or knowledge dissemination.
And then what happened is you have a bunch of players
who has nothing to do with this process of either creating the science or generating the knowledge or absorbing the knowledge, but they ended up owning the knowledge.
and all these intermediaries who kind of lobby with different, in biotech you can talk about drugs,
or then in general in science or knowledge you can talk about intermediaries who fund and hold these IPs with this sort of exclusivity,
these IPs with this sort of exclusivity, right?
Like to protect it and to make maximum capital
benefit out of it, right?
So I see these people as the market.
So you have always two competing,
two players in this entire game.
One is the market, the other is the state the market is always there
for extraction and exploitation and then you have the other side which is the state which is to
you know regulate and kind of control what's getting disseminated or what's getting that what is getting that attention right
so in the middle is us basically people citizens or the house of commons who who are you know
bunch of people who build things like internet, open source codes,
who are there just for doing things for common good, right?
So that everyone could come up and build on top of it for the common good of humanity.
So this movement that's coming out of,
that's sort of a revolutionary movement coming out of the commons, because mostly the market and the state will try to, you know, subdue us or, you know, not give the voice that we need, like, you know, not give any sort of place for us to raise our voices. But in DSI, what I'm interested about
or what really makes me, you know,
motivated to put my time and effort into this place
is that this is one such moment
where we are going beyond the control of,
not the control, of course,
we are still under the control of, not the control, of course, we are still under the control of market and the state.
But then we are kind of trying to test a thesis, which will then help us create a third front,
which will also have certain power.
Because if market is selling something,
there needs to be a consumer to consume that.
If we stop consuming, market cannot sell it.
Market cannot make money out of it.
So with that power, what can we do?
And if state is regulating something, the state cannot function without us.
And how can we exercise that power to really create the third front and then
have those sort of rails to raise our voice, raise those questions,
or, you know, I think DISA is more sort of an infrastructure project,
which will create those infrastructures for next generation
to build on all those visions that we are discussing here.
With that, I'll end my monologue.
Yeah, so on to you, Joe and Karlyn. on all those visions that we are discussing here. With that, I'll end my monologue.
Yeah, so on to you, Joe and Karlyn, if you have any thoughts or comments on that.
Kijo, I could listen to you monologue all day.
But I totally agree with you on the two separate worlds,
like these bottom line people who, you know, above all else,
need to increase the amount of, you know, currency that's going into their pocket or their accounts.
And then sort of the state entities that are these, you know, larger institutions that maybe initially
have started out with like sort of the nod toward the public good.
But I think somewhere along the way, the states or like these more public entities are also looking to increase their bottom line.
I think that the like, you know, amount of profit or money that something makes is now become important to these public entities too,
because being able to perform well in that regard
ensures that your cashflow of part of the public good money
is gonna continue to go to you.
So maybe we can sort of bridge that gap
by looking to use the infrastructure
that we're building to create the most, I don't know, I like the word open source.
I like open source stuff.
But, you know, I think with open source, there also needs to be this level of like, you know,
regulations, I think are a good thing in, you know, in like all things
in moderation. So like, you know, a regulated open source of, you know, these new ideas so that
we can not only, you know, maximize the, the output of the public, you know, good funds,
but also increase the chances of a more profitable market opportunity.
So I think everybody wins in the final scenario,
but in getting people to maybe agree to stay in their lane
is maybe what I'm looking for here.
But that is kind of an uphill battle,
I think, that we're still kind of trying to overcome.
Yeah, that's my thoughts on it. Any thoughts, Jo? I have some messy thoughts. I think I'll try and articulate myself,
but even just in, you know, having these conversations, which are so interesting to continue to learn more about decentralization and what that looks like, what it doesn't look like, where the dreams are realistic and where, you know, we still maybe have some fleshing out to do.
I think I have more of a broad question for then how do we make sure that as we're building
a different type of scientific outlook and a different type of scientific protocol and practice,
how do we make sure we're not carrying some of the things that traditional science
don't do well, like not giving broad enough voices to the voiceless and not making sure that, you know,
research innovations are contextually relevant and affordable and accessible.
I'm really excited about the things that are happening in biotech, but I also sometimes think,
is this really relevant? It's cool. It's really cool. And as a curious scientist, I'm all
on board. But if I think about the fact that we don't need more science, we need better science,
we need better research, research that is targeted to issues that affect more and more people,
and that will continue to do so. Yeah, I think I just have a broader question about how do we not make the same mistakes?
And this is a question that I think will keep me on the D-side journey and just a philosophy of life.
How do we learn? How do we keep learning?
And how do we not be afraid to say we may be messed up and we need to, you know, continue to learn, continue to mess up?
That's a great question. That's a great question and i think i still have the same question
but in a different uh you know like different add-ons to it but then uh my approach to it i
don't have an answer my approach to it is to run mini experiments,
to test different models and possible solutions to try what works because we don't know what
works and even with this AI scenario, we are tumbled upon something like when we first
invented fire, we didn't know what to do with it.
That really accelerated our evolution as a
species. So AI is going to
do something like that, but then we really
don't know what to do with it, what's going to happen with it.
It can either make
or break things.
So I think that's the beauty
of it, not knowing what's
there in the future, what's
going to happen in the future.
I think what we could do right now
is to run a bunch of these mini experiments.
And then while doing these experiments,
being cautious about why we came into this,
why are we doing this, and sticking to those ethos
is very important.
I think this is sort of a
generational question the duty of the generation as Charles from Spined out
say it's a duty of the generation because if you look in past like every
generation has built the world on their view, on their principles, on what they believed is true or what they believed was right.
So I think our generation, the generation of our age is thinking differently.
It's kind of, you know, has succumbed to these sort of problems in traditional science or science being,
you know, trapped into these Moloch traps. So I think our generation, like you and me and Karlyn
and all others who are listening to this, we will, we all have these questions. So I think this is
important. We all should have that same question. And if we all have that question you know burning inside us and we will
try in one or the other way to implement few things which could really improve or like build
those rails that we need uh for dsci or in general science to you know escape this trap
so yeah that's that's my kind of take on your, your question.
Yeah. And I think that I agree with Kehoe and I think that from a more, you know, the human side
of things, what, what we could specifically do ourselves is be, we could be real, you know, we
can, I think that we have a lot to learn from history and, you know, there are certainly a lot of benefits from
looking at success cases and then, you know, adding on to what they've already done. I like to build
from a place of positivity. So, you know, seeing what's good and building upon that, I think is
very important. But as we're thinking of, you know, the more rebel side of D-side,
like where we want to tear down this traditional system, being real and straight up about, you
know, our own personal biases, like, you know, things that we, you know, you're not supposed
to want or hope things as a scientist, but, you know, we all do whenever we do these experiments. So being for making sure that we not just avoid,
but, you know, entirely leave behind these like pitfalls that we're still seeing in some of the,
you know, the people with the Desai, the Desai idea and the framework,
but not necessarily the true Desai spirit just yet.
So yeah, I hope that answers your question, Joe.
It is definitely a question we're going to be addressing in our lifetime.
I agree on that regard.
Exactly.
Generational stuff.
But I think, you know, look in the mirror.
We have to take a frank look at
ourselves and be like this this is what can't happen anymore um still people you know still
complaining about like you know misogyny in a space and in big 2025 is crazy you know what i'm
saying yeah that's that's a definite no-go exactly yeah. Yeah. And you need to take up.
Movements like this doesn't happen so often.
This is something like when blockchain and the DeFi movement happened for currency because there was an imminent problem and countries going bankrupt.
There was a need for the sort of digital payments
and more beyond that, the sort of, you know,
foolproof system which could enable those things to happen.
So when these movements happened,
we were very young to really hop on into those movements.
But I think now we are in the right time for D-side.
And I think as a scientist, it really appeals to me,
the ethos of it.
It's up to the players within D-side to choose
whether they would play with the ethics
or not play with the ethics,
like whether they would play the good game or the bad game.
But then if most people will play the good
game then it's gonna be a net positive game so that's what i'm in here for spread the message
be critical be self-critical and raise those uncomfortable questions and positive criticisms
so that people can work on it build on top top of it, and then, you know,
make it a better movement, right? Like help it succeed. Right.
So with that, I've been others, it's all constructive, right?
Exactly. Yeah. So my question to all of you who are here, um,
what really got you, uh, to come into DSI?
Like that specific one breaking point, right?
Like, okay, I think this is definitely something
that I want to put my time or effort
or at least my mind share into.
What was that?
For me, it was definitely, as I said, the first part,
which is giving the power or the access or the control back to the third front, the house of commons or the commons as a third front.
That really intrigued me and interested me. And when it was happening for the specific use case or specific field that I'm involved into, which is science,
that really kind of, you know, pulled me into this game.
So for you guys, if anyone wants to come up to the stage and answer this question,
feel free to our comment.
Now we have Carlin and Joe.
Yeah, up to you guys.
Yeah, I think what brought me into it is just the feeling of you know like you were saying
um being feeling like such a small part of a large
and like maybe ineffectual part of a large entity was really dissatisfying to me. And I think the chance to grab some of my own autonomy and governance and also do it
in a way that does what I've always wanted to do is help people, I think is what really
drew me to try to make these projects and these infrastructures work a little bit better.
I think I've said it, anyone who ever asks me, the thing that brought me to DSi is that TradSci was not it.
Over and over and over again, TradSci was not it.
I would love to hear from some other peeps on the call,
though, if you're keen to share.
Please jump in.
Also, feel free to post your thoughts
into the comment section.
But then if you are someone who is exploring what is DSci, and if you are here to learn what is DSci and should I get into it or why does it matter to me?
You should.
Why should I care about it?
You should answer.
Yeah.
No, no, no.
Carlin has a compelling answer.
So I'll let Carlin answer this.
Sorry.
Say that again, Kehoe.
Karlyn, I think you should tell people who are here for the first time, who doesn't know what DSI is, are exploring what DSI is.
Tell them what is DSI.
Oh, absolutely. So Desai is essentially using the, you know, Web3 crypto, you know, on-chain which is entirely done through universities, this sort of way of doing science is like looking to transform it in a way that makes it more even have, you know, the scientific expertise to get
Oh, absolutely.
back to what we all have done, have known since our, you know, since our youths, which is that
science is really cool and fun. And it's, it's not just a, you know, it's not just something for
people in ivory towers. It's for, you know, it's for everyone. It is the language of biology and the language of, you know, our lives that we live.
And so I think everybody should be able to be a part of it.
And that's what D-Sai is looking to do.
yeah i think that's uh yeah well said and i have like one more thing to add on which is
Yeah, I think that's, yeah, well said.
uh for me i see dsai uh you know as a movement that is decentralizing science and the question
why we need decentralization or why i should care about science is that I think science touches everyone's life at
some point or the other like the products that we use the technology that we have around us
the medications that we take the drugs the treatments everything is sort of a dissemination
that's coming out of science or the scientific process and if you are paying a heavy price for it,
or if you don't have,
if you feel like you haven't given clear answers
or clear justification for some of the products that you use
or some of the treatments that you get or medications,
or if you think you are paying like a hefty sum of money
for all of this, then if you think you are paying like a hefty sum of money for all of this then if you
look deeper then the problem is exactly what carlin highlighted because the scientific process has
the traditional scientific process is troubled with a lot of different uh moloch traps or
bureaucracies or you know uh deadlocks so that's what we are trying to solve or trying to fix.
We're going to do it.
Let's do it.
Let's do it.
Let's fucking go.
So yeah, with that, we are top of our hour.
And thanks everyone for tuning in.
Yes, special thank you to Joe for hopping on and talking with us today.
It was so great to hear from you.
You know, one of my favorite mentees, honestly.
Thanks, Joe.
Thanks for joining the call. We also had a very good conversation uh at
berlin uh we are cooking something up um yeah i'm not gonna disclose so yeah we'll save that See you next time. Monday, July 7th at 4pm CET.
Yes.
Perfect.
All right.
Bye then.
Have a good one, all of you.
Bye-bye.
Bye.
Adios. Thank you.
