Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening, I'll go fam and good morning. Good afternoon
mostly good afternoon to my amazing
and co-host here in the speaker bar today,
Adri Alessandro, Stefan and Michele.
I'll start with you, Adri.
I'm happy to be here finally having this conversation.
How's everybody else doing?
Extremely happy to be here
and cannot wait to get the show on the road.
Hi everyone, thank you Fred for the intro.
And yeah, we want to hear what you,
what's new for the next Ingo station.
Fantastic, looking forward to this.
All right, I see Michele, you are in the audience.
If you can hit the request button, please,
so I can bring it to the speaker board.
I have also sent you a speaking invite.
But hey, happy to see there's a lot of Allgo fam
Thank you so much for everybody that's tuning in live.
I see people from every part of the world here.
So yeah, thanks a lot for joining, I appreciate it.
Michele just texted us that he's having some phone issues.
He's going to join shortly, I believe.
But Adri, this space is all yours, my friend.
Take it away if you want to get started,
maybe share some like initial words
or just wait another minute for Michele.
It is your call, take it away.
So Michele is part in this,
it's a little bit later in the program.
So I'll kick off to save time and move things along.
I know the Allgo fam has been very curious
about the things we've been cooking up
for the next iteration of the XGOV platform.
we will discuss the grant proposal lifecycle.
There are five stages in this lifecycle,
the proposal creation, the proposal checks,
proposal discussion, voting and funding.
So we're going to cover all of this today.
We are not going to talk about today XGOV selection criteria.
We're going to need a space
just to discuss the new selection criteria
and the ideas that we are forming around that.
We are also going to need another space
to discuss the platform bylaws
and the rules that will govern the new platform
and also how funding will evolve through time
So today we have Alessandro here.
He has been a very busy bee going through the requirements.
We have had a whole bunch of meetings
with the developer team already.
We're going through these requirements pretty gently
and we are very happy to be going through them
So Alessandro, why don't you take it away?
So taking into account a lot of feedback
that we have received throughout this pilot,
we started thinking by first and key principles.
So what we're proposing is a web app
with smart contracts combo.
One of the key principles here is that the platform
should be extremely easy to run
and extremely easy to maintain.
So we don't want to have backend databases and all that.
Everything that should be important
and should be auditable should be on chain.
But removing barriers of entry.
So the first thing is we would like to do away with GitHub.
We know that a lot of non-technical users
may require funding for their initiatives
and GitHub is a barrier of entry that is,
if you're non-technical, it's fairly high
because understanding what a PR is,
if you don't need to, might be difficult.
So the proposal itself, you will simply be able
to propose it from a form.
That is first thing first, you don't need GitHub.
You'll have a normal form like you write a tweet
and everything and you can get your proposal on there.
Let's go on the proposal lifecycle.
Every user that has an algorithm address
This is how it is now and how it should be going forward.
You can propose by creating a new proposal.
And here we have had to put a few spam prevention mechanisms
in prepared out throughout this lifecycle,
simply because historically by lowering the barriers
of entries, you get more people
and you get more bad actors into the gates.
We have also thought of the notion of a council
We will touch on this later, but the council,
which will be a small subset of XCoves voted by the XCoves
will have a more active part into the maintenance
of the platform and the maintenance
of the XCoves process itself.
So once you've drafted your proposal,
the first thing it goes through is you get a review.
It means that the platform itself will have some bylaws.
This, we will draw them up together in conjunction
with our community and especially with the XCoves.
And they need to abide the terms and conditions.
So if you want to create a proposal,
you will have to put forward a few things.
First and foremost, the proposal details,
you can be as thorough or as lighthearted as you want,
as you wish within certain realm of boundaries.
When you send the proposal off for review,
you are paying a small fee and this fee generated
will be redirected into the XCoves treasury.
And you will put your money where your heart sets,
meaning you have to stake,
you have to put at risk 1% of the money that you're asking.
So that we are sure that you have good intentions,
meaning that if the proposal doesn't pass the review phase,
which means you're going against
what the platform allows you to do,
that 1% will get slashed.
This is a core mechanism that in my opinion,
it's fair simply because we don't want spam.
We don't want spam and we don't want to hug everyone
to hug the XCoves platform,
but this should be for serious intents only.
So this is why we fell from this.
After you go through the review process,
there is a question of KOC.
We, as the foundation, can only make payments
to legal entities or legal people that are recognized.
We have a few, a bit of red tape
around who we can give money to,
who we can send algos to compared to USBC.
So at a certain stage of this proposal lifecycle,
there will be a need for KOC.
In my opinion, it should be just right
but we're open up to suggestion for that.
Then we have divided the proposals into three main categories
and it's small spend, medium spend, big spend.
Of course, everything is up for grabs.
The small category is, if you're asked,
The medium category is between 50K and 250K algos.
And the big spend is over 250K algos.
So once the review process is over,
and if the review process has failed,
and this review process is done by the council,
so a subset of XCOBS and I foundation representative,
one or more up to you guys to decide,
we are happy with only one.
We go to the discussion phase.
The discussion phase has a variable length,
So we've always envisioned then of course ballpark numbers.
If your proposal is categorized in a small ask,
the proposal will be open for one week for discussion.
If it's medium, it's two weeks.
If it's a big spend, it's three weeks.
Here in the platform, we will generate
with the changing state of the proposal
from review to discussion,
we will generate automatically a thread
We want to limit the conversation to only XCOBS.
So we will have to think how we do that.
It's either by embedding parts,
a thread on the forum that is locked only if you interact
with it from the platform or not.
We still have to figure it out.
And we also would love your ideas on it.
And during that period, well,
you discuss the proposal, you get feedback,
you iterate on the proposal if you think
it warrants some changes,
or you can simply just YOLO it and say, yeah, I'm good.
I don't want to participate in an active discussion.
After the discussion phase finishes,
the proposal will automatically vote.
This, as the discussion phase,
the duration of the vote is variable depending
on the amount of money you're asking.
So if it's a small vote, if it's a small ask,
one week of voting, if it's a medium ask, two weeks,
if it's a big ask, three weeks.
This is the vote only happens,
only XCOBS can vote, of course.
This is why we're creating XCOBS.
We're giving you the reins and the decision-making power
of what you want to see and who you want to reward.
There are two main types of proposals.
We are envisioning and we will be creating templates
So you will have in the what you see is what you get editor.
You will have a pretty much boilerplate templates
that you fill in with the details.
And then of course you'll have open-ended sections
where you explain your proposal in details and why and what.
The two proposals are first is I have done this.
It has been useful for XYZ
because a lot of people are using it
or it has generated a lot of transactions, blah, blah, blah.
I would like to get X amounts in return
This is one side of the proposal.
The other side of the proposal is I want to do this.
I need X amount of funding split into N number of months.
So the only way where the platform would send money
right after the vote is for the retractive grants
because you have proved your work
and the community has deemed that you should.
Otherwise, we're not sending you money
on the hope of you delivering something
but it will be behind milestones.
And the milestone verification part
will be taken care of by the council
plus foundation representative,
which can be, if it's something related to NFTs,
we can have our head of NFTs.
If it's something related to DeFi,
head of DeFi, if it's tooling, I can be here
or if you want to know that is way more technical than me,
we can get them on boards
to discuss the advancements of the milestones.
And after the council agrees,
then the milestone payment will be discussed.
So this is the short version of it.
We, a few things, what is the council?
We envision the council as a group of 17 individuals,
16 community members that are XCOPs
and one foundation representative.
The mandate is to vet draft proposals,
make sure they abide to the platform terms and conditions
and that the projects complete their milestones
as intended before payment is released.
You may have some questions here,
such as what happens to periods and everything.
The access to money should be available 24 seven,
365 days a week, 365 days a year, apologies.
So you'll be able to propose and get a grant
in realistically two weeks plus verification
as a minimum, which is, in my opinion,
a decent turnaround to have,
but we're also open to suggestions on this.
We will still enforce a quarterly calendar in our vision
One is new council elections.
We think that the council should change every three months
and the members of the council should be different
So we're talking non-consecutive terms.
So you can do term one and term three,
but not term one and term two.
We will have a commitment by the foundation
to do a treasury top-up at a quarterly cadence.
This means that maybe the first time we do a top-up,
people will be in a frenzy to ask for money,
but in the long-term, this should be stabilized.
We should see the Xgov platform as a line of credits
to reward great builders that have done,
have had an amazing impact on the ecosystem
or to fund ideas that we as a community want.
So access to funding should be 24 seven.
How does a proposal pass?
Because we said, yeah, the proposal passes.
So as we've seen in the current iteration,
there are a few problems.
So we've came up with a way that seems democratic enough,
but difficult enough to gain that maybe it's not worth it.
So we envision the proposal to pass
has to meet two criterias.
One, an X amount of votes from X,
And that's usually in general elections is called forum.
So unless expert is sent of Xgov vote,
the proposal will be no and void.
And the other part, which will be the important part
is what percentage of stake is in approval
of this proposal passing.
With this, there are possibilities to have civil attacks.
So we have seen these two thresholds to be dynamic,
meaning on the first minute of a proposal going live,
you will need a hundred percent of Xgovs
and a hundred percent of stake for the proposal to pass.
This will have a decaying function
that it will make it easier and more just
and more fair to pass as the proposal life goes on.
On this, we will have Mikaela speaking a bit more,
but in our opinion, this is a way to mitigate
common DAO attacks that we have seen,
where let's say the proposal is should founder buy a Lambo,
the entire community says no,
but the entire community only has 49% of the stake.
And then the founder says, yeah, I want it.
So he buys himself a Lambo with this vote.
You will need a decent amount of wallets
and a decent amount of stake
to actually be able to attack it.
And in our opinion, this is a good way forward.
Of course, we have a lot of smart community members
that are incredibly detail oriented.
So we are all ears on this as well.
If you have better solutions
or you want to add other things, we're open to it.
But yeah, the core thing is this platform will be live 24 seven.
Our users will have access 24 seven to funding.
There will still be waiting periods for discussions
because discussions are useful.
Discussions will even from a proposal standpoint
gauge the product market fit of what you're proposing.
If this is a proposal that requires future funding,
and if it's a retroactive funding,
then you will have a way to show
that what you have done has made an impact.
But yeah, this is the gist of it.
So Miki, do you want to explain how,
give an example of how a proposal should pass?
Mika, just before you, may I just add one thing?
Community, if you have questions,
start raising your hands and I start bringing you up on stage.
So as soon as Mika and I finish explaining
the voting mechanism part,
you can start asking your questions
or adding your comments, making suggestions, et cetera.
We are here also to hear you and your feedback.
we have to acknowledge that we have been inspired by,
let's say, the Polk Assembly mechanism
by looking at, let's say,
the temporal decay of the requirements.
And we think that is, let's say,
a smart way of, at the same time,
allowing an efficient allocation,
but also preventing a small bunch of people,
either by number of wallets or by stake,
So the idea, let's take for, as an example,
the minimum spender, which in our case,
we are thinking about two weeks of voting session.
this voting session will start whenever the,
let's say, the first part is ended.
So it's continuous in time, right?
So there could be concurrent session for every proposal.
Suppose that a proposal starts now.
there will be a check on the quorum,
which is the total number of wallets
who are actually participating
in the voting session of this proposal,
independently for the yes or no,
is a measure of, let's say, the attention
and the relevance for the,
let's say, the total pool of voters that are there.
The idea, the decaying time of these requirements
is that we start from a very strict,
unrealistic requirements of, let's say,
and 100% of stake of the total voters
must be there to make the proposal pass.
And then as time passes, a temporal decay,
which has, let's say, a floor,
which is reasonable in the sense
that we are targeting is still under discussion.
We are targeting something like
in order to have a medium-spender approved
at the end of the two weeks,
the floor is something like 30% of the total addresses
must be present in the vote
and something like 20% of the total stake must be there.
Obviously, the majority is a relative majority
of the people who are attending the vote
is also starting from 100% still unrealistic
and, let's say, relaxing to a final,
let's say, 50% plus one of the majority needed.
So this is more or less the requirements.
Let me say that this strongly depends
on our definition of the, let's say, of the X-cobs.
And let me say that we are thinking about
something different from what is now,
but this is not the topic of, let's say,
We are going to enter it more into details into,
let's say, in the FARTA discussion on it.
The idea is to, let's say, also acknowledge,
first of all, the work from governors
had on tracking down, let's say,
possible entities behind a relevant fraction of addresses,
which is, let's say, an information
that must be taken into account.
But keep in mind that in the beta version, the X-cobs,
we want them to have a robust way to enter in the game.
And probably in that case, the number of governors
will be a meaningful number,
which could be quite different with what we have
in the current iteration of the X-cobs.
Okay, for me, it's almost explained
the gist of what we want to do.
If you want, if you have questions, we can go on.
Whilst we wait for the community to ask to join,
Stefan, do you want to talk briefly
about how the ARK process will look like for this from now
until we move from this pilot to live better?
So jointly, as some of you might know,
we have two ARKs related to the X-gov process,
the 33 and the 34, the one for the proposal,
the other is for the process overall.
And so we still have one station to go.
For the moment, we still need to refer
to what has been written inside the ARK.
We will do some ARK meeting only related to these two ARKs,
and we will prepare to make them
either withdraw at the end of the two quarters
or compatible for the next station.
For example, we will have a real front-end.
So we might not need to have a template
written in markdown that you will need to copy paste
in order to create your proposal.
You will only need to complete the form
on the front-end directly,
and it will create your proposal.
So you will not need to bother on that.
But some rules needs to be written somewhere.
So we might still need a place to write them,
and we will, I guess, still have one ARK
but it might be at the end on the front-end also.
So it really depends on what we want to do,
and we will ask few meetings to discuss that.
During coming, we have almost two quarters to the side,
and we will ask meeting to discuss that.
And I would love to have feedback on that also,
because they helped us a lot to create this pilot,
and maybe just throw them away
might be a waste of time and energy,
and just complete them might be irrelevant.
Great. Thank you, Stefan.
A lot of work I had for the ARK project.
Simon, welcome to the stage.
Hey, thanks for having me.
Firstly, is there a document
that will kind of outline everything
that's being discussed here,
because it's a lot of new information.
I'm pretty sure everybody shares this opinion
that it's kind of a lot to digest.
And the second question is a bit more specific.
It's about the slashing that was mentioned.
Can you just reiterate on that
in terms of when does the slashing happen?
Is it based on proposal passing
or not passing certain threshold being hit,
or I didn't catch that initially?
Alessandra, I'll let you speak.
I'll let you speak on the slashing in one second.
So as far as I mentioned,
we will add a document that describes
all we discussed today to the forum tomorrow.
And so we'll have the forum thread
as a place to discuss this on the forum,
split the XGOV channel on Discord,
and we're going to have an XGOV development channel
so we can discuss just how we,
the development of the platform
separate from proposals, discussions,
and other bits and bobs of community questions.
So documents, I'm finishing it up now.
We should be able to release it tomorrow,
it'll be a nice and easy read over the weekend.
And regarding the slashing,
we don't want to penalize
We just want to penalize bad behavior,
meaning you will get the 1% ask back
as soon as review passes, meaning your,
are you trying to fund something that is illegal?
You know, we cannot fund this.
It's in the terms and conditions.
It will be written crystal clear
what will require slashing.
So the slashing will have,
will, in my opinion, shouldn't really happen,
but it will happen only if you're breaking the rules.
why should we penalize you even more?
Unfortunately it's failed,
but you're getting your stake back
as soon as we have the assurance
that you're abiding to the platform
terms and condition and bylaws written up by the community.
This is simply a feel safe measure, Simon.
And there's the proposal fee,
which is smaller, is non-refundable.
another way of supplying funds to,
and then whoever gets less,
those funds also go to the ex-gov pot.
Otherwise they just receive them back.
Simon, do you have any other questions before we move on to Oyster?
Yes, Ade, can I add an observation on this?
Just to give you the idea,
I think we should always look at what we are doing now in the,
in the experimental version and in the beta.
In this, in this iteration,
we have the GitHub which acts some kind of a filter because people,
it's kind of a burden to enter there and prepare and do the things.
But actually there's no money involved.
We are hoping to have, to create,
let's say an experience that will be very easy and smooth.
And so we are lowering the barrier of entering in the process.
And therefore in order to,
let's say counteract this lowering of the barrier,
we are, let's say putting a little,
something that could be seen as a deterrent of people not floating the requests
with copycats or whatever.
That's the only, the only reason.
It's not that we want to make money from the stake or end the fees
just for covering the effort of going through the, through the old checkings.
And to add on that, all of the fees generated by the platform,
either through fee entry or slashing will be automatically redirected
to the EXCOV Treasury Fund.
So this is, if people try to attack the platform,
we are all getting more money for, for funding.
It's, it's, it's a win-win.
This is, it's just simply to mitigate bad actors.
Thanks guys. Oyster Pack, you're up next.
Yeah, first I just want to say, sounds,
you guys put a lot of thought into this.
It's a big, huge improvement in the high-level overview of it.
And like the other person said, you know,
obviously this needs to be some documentation around this.
And I'm sure you're planning and start a discussion on the forum.
But the questions I had, two questions.
One, I heard that there'll be some, there's some restrictions
on distributing ALGO for the, for these grants,
for these EXCOV proposals.
Does that mean, just to be clear,
is there a jurisdiction restrictions?
Can, can, for example, can, can people in the US
submit proposals and get, and get funded?
Is for the people who have gone through US-based,
who have gone through the, the EXCOV process,
even now, the, the funds received will be the USDC equivalent of the ALGO-asked.
Because this is, yes, because there, and there is some geofencing on,
on payments we, we have to do and the, the actual currency.
But it's, we, we wanted to be as inclusive as possible.
So we are ready to, to also have the way of sending payment with USDC.
And on regards to the documents, we will have a document ready tomorrow.
We will open up a forum thread and the Discord chat.
And I am trying even also based on your interests.
If you want, we can do a one hour a week live stream of me working on how the platform is going
and doing wireframes and ironing out all the details
and how we should take on board the feedback that you give us.
Even biweekly should be sufficient.
Yeah. Let's, let's play it by your end.
Let's see. It's so, yeah.
Yeah. And one last question regarding the ex-gov signup period.
Today it's quarterly and since we're moving basic to, you know,
you can apply any time for grants.
So is there any plans to make the ex-gov signup just any time
versus just having a quarterly signup period?
I am both in favor and against it.
Meaning if an ex-gov can sign up anytime,
the platform will be more susceptible to civil attacks from a certain standpoint.
But we are in the midst of reworking what it means to be an ex-gov
and what are the requirements to be an ex-gov.
So there are a few ideas coming in from the community, which are really nice.
And if all of a sudden you can register to be an ex-gov programmatically
because you are some sort of on-chain behavior,
then we can easily make that process fluid as well.
Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all the questions I had.
We have silent rhetoric next and then AP.
Welcome, silent rhetoric.
Hello. Thanks for having me.
I want to say that I appreciate, and I think the community appreciates
you all engaging us at an early stage in designing the next iteration of ex-gov.
And I'm looking forward to these discussions on the forum
and in Discord as we work through the design.
I encourage the community to jump into those discussions
as we refine the arcs and the mechanisms and all of this.
One quick comment that I would make is I would appreciate
if the technical build-out of the smart contract and the platform
was something that was really open
so that the community can build tools around that,
similar to the ex-gov guru that I built,
because it took some time for us to get to the point where
we had really good insight into what was going on.
And I'd like to cut that process shorter this time.
One question I have that I don't think has been covered
by the discussion around voting mechanisms and schedules and so forth
is what are we thinking in terms of moving toward
a program where expert governors are more expert, if you will?
Or are you thinking that the establishment of the council
sort of addresses that, right?
Because we've acknowledged that there was a botnet involved
How do we ramp up the requirements for being an expert governor?
So, well, we have, at least I see in the participants
and listeners here, one of the devs that will work
on this platform, and we want to make it as open as possible.
So we'll start with a simple document that will be released tomorrow
and you'll have live streams on my end working through wireframes
and all of the quirks that come up during product discovery.
And we also want to have the entire development process
So it will be live on our GitHub.
We can set up, I don't want to commit other people's time to do things,
but we can have updates from the dev team
as part of the communication cycle on this effort.
And with regards to what constitutes an Xgov
and how do we better define that,
that's an excellent question for another time
because we have a few ideas on this
and we might need the help of Algorand Technologies
to implement something on the AVM level.
So I'm thinking of codes.
But the council is itself a small subset of people
So you can run an election, you yourself,
you're a prominent community member,
you know the tech you have skin in the game.
You can say, hey, I want to be in the council
and we will do an election for the first iteration of the council
so that it will be Xgovs deciding it and then we go from there.
Yeah, Ale, let me add that the council has a role
only in, let's say, checking that the proposal
is coherent with the bylaws.
It's not a power of approving,
as a power of rejecting, let's say,
but by looking at compliance,
not at, let's say, the goodness of the proposal.
The vote is still in the hand of all the Xgovs.
And let's say how to become an Xgov, it's a hot topic.
Let me say, we are exploring thanks to the, let's say,
to the hints of the community, maybe, maybe,
because it's still undecided,
a way of acknowledging not runners are rolling the Xgovs.
We are not 100% sure if it's good,
but this could be one of the direction to be used.
I think we are exploring this because being an old runner,
it's obviously something that we want to incentivize,
but also something that require a good level of expertise.
And that would be like the low-hanging fruit
for the first iteration, for the better,
or what we're doing this year.
But I think we should also pass that,
look at opportunities to acknowledge
other expert members of the community
that for whatever reason might not be able to run a node.
And that's going to take a longer time.
We could look at community contributions
and other things like that.
But also, I think we'll hold a space to discuss this
and gather more ideas from you guys,
and also to discuss the council in a little bit more detail
and try to understand how do you want to run this.
This is obviously something that requires
a little bit more work from the Xgovs themselves.
That's why we thought having this on and off three months cohort
So if you're not in the council for a whole year looking at,
I don't know, it could be hundreds of proposals.
You're there every other three months
or once a year or however you like.
And that could add a little bit of extra value
Thanks for your questions.
Do you have any other question or comments, Salant,
Yeah, my question, hi, everyone.
So my question is regarding the pool.
So many people were complaining that the pool for the pilot
is very small, obviously it's a pilot.
So will there be a bigger pool available once we go,
once the pilot ends and the actual Xgov opens?
That's the question from my side.
It's not clear to me what you mean by pool.
Could you elaborate more, please?
Yeah, the pool of Elgo available for April 4th.
That could be two million, right?
Okay, let me say, this is a hard question.
We cannot say numbers, but I would say that we have received,
let's say, the goal of building this tool
that is creating an Xgov framework that allows robust decision making.
And therefore, this is a big bet for the foundation.
And we are definitely going, doubling down, let's say,
not in a quantitative sense.
Don't take my words in this case in detail,
but we are going to bet heavily on this.
So the idea is to devote funds for allocation.
As soon as we, in the sense of the community,
we realize that this process is robust.
Okay, so for sure, it's in the strategic direction of the foundation
to use Xgovs to make these decisions.
It's a request to all the community members who are listening now
and maybe in the future date to go through the documentation
and share their opinion in the forum or wherever available
so that the people who are working on this tool
will get more diverse opinions on which they can work on.
To add on AP's excellent point,
we are building this for you to use and for you to benefit from
and for you to express your opinion
and shape the future of this ecosystem.
So the more feedback we receive, the better.
You'll see me sweat a bit more. It's going to be fun.
Ludo has joined the stage.
Do you have a question, comment? Both?
What are we looking at, Kate?
Is the police coming to you?
Okay, I think I have some big delay,
but I will ask my questions.
So first question is, can I request the amount in euros?
Basically, this means that I want to have like
predicted funding for my project.
I think you might be happy.
I have a really long delay.
Okay, how about there's another speaker that joined the stage.
How about you come back again?
Let me refresh my Twitter.
Yes, I'll read you and then you come back and ask your questions.
Okay, Rich, welcome to the stage.
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you again for having this platform update
and listening to the community.
It's good to have a voice and feel heard.
I think that's very important for our growth.
Also, I just want to take time out to thank everybody that participated.
You know, Simon, Silent, Fisherman, Stitch, Oyster, Lobo,
several others are probably forgetting as well.
Governor, you know, everybody that participated, it takes a team to change,
And this is hopefully one of many steps going forward.
I'm sure that the proposal won't be perfect, but at least it's a step in the
right direction and something that we can continue to push forward.
And Adri, thank you so much, because you fielded so many questions towards
things that probably weren't even your direction or your job.
So I really, really appreciate you for being a soldier and taking everything
in stride and still remaining professional, even sometimes when maybe I or
somebody else wasn't professional.
So thank you so much for that.
Yes, sometimes the questions are many and big, but you know, I really enjoy
hanging out with you all.
So you always make my day.
Let's see if we can make this happen this time.
Ali, Steph, Mikaly, do you, what, what do we go from here?
Well, I'll finish up the document.
We will post it tomorrow.
And in the meantime, we'll open up a Discord channel and we can start talking
about it there and setting up weekly, biweekly, monthly.
However, you prefer meetings so that you can be part of the process and you can
yell at me while I'm working on it.
And from the perspective.
I think the end of next week and see and try to set up meetings or be
weekly or whatever only dedicated to the process.
And yeah, we just need to wait.
You guys will react to what we will post tomorrow and see how it needs to
I honestly requested to be, let's say, humble in the request because we are
trying to build something that is very, could be very complicated.
So let's focus on the basic things that we want to build.
And then we could build further refinements on top of this because we are
touching a lot of parts of the process.
Ludo, if you want to speak, the stage is yours.
Ludo, I think you're having technical difficulties still.
I'm sure we'll see you on the forum and on Discord and you can ask your
We're almost at closing time.
Just iterating on what Michalie was speaking.
This design that we are launching as soon as possible, we are targeting
Q3, is only the first iteration.
We will, it's still, it will be a life better.
It's not like the final version.
There's never a final version in product, right?
There's always something to improve.
So we will bring you along this journey with us.
We thought this is the first part, the most important and the most time
So we wanted to bring you on this side of the journey first so we can finish
The dev team can go away and start building this.
And then once that happening, we're talking about the things like who is
going to be an exgov, how that's going to evolve through time, how is this
council is going to work, how many should we have there and all the details
and also work on the platform bylaws.
There has been lots of talk about what should be in a template, what should
be in a grant proposal template, what kind of deliverables should be there,
So lots and lots of unknowns that we should work together to fill in these
And, you know, I think this year is going to be an amazing year and I cannot
wait to get to June and hopefully see many of you at the Cypher when we
actually have something to show for sure.
So if there are any more questions from our speakers, we're happy to answer
Otherwise, I think we should all go and leave this day.
And, you know, it's almost 2 a.m. in Australia, so I'm going to go and have
a good night's sleep because today I'm going to sleep really happy after we
have, you know, spoken about this and we've heard your initial feedback and
I'm really looking forward to see what's coming up on the forum and
Thanks everyone for joining us.
See you on the interwebs.