Oceans of Wisdom

and nuance: 'veto' should be opt-out

etc

giving them security et

including contracting, paying people for long-term

i do not want to limit ourselves to backwards grants. I want the full set of capabilities that businesses, governments, non-profits have

with your specific money

but then you get to choose if you are going to fund that specific thing

bc everyone was busy

ok maybe we passed that vote

"this approach gives a second layer of defense" Punk and Ruskin are the only ones to show up to vote and push through "champagne for punk and ruskin every breakfast"

not to say we can't take on projects more than 1 month long

i picked a month as an example

your units go back in the pool

something

that if you don't fund

there just has to be some period

we should be able to fund longer-term

this approach gives a second layer of defense

in treasuries that are just spent by majority vote

you see stuff like this

"pay my friend $100K/month for advising on market entry in California"

the bad outcome is looting

this is a good outcome

we have agreed to spend 10,000 units on A, 10,000 units on B, 10,000 on C I have 100 units to spend this month, where do I put them, including option D which is none of the above (but you still use your units)

seems like a good check on this

but i think giving every individual a line item veto

i think this part is inevitable that not everyone is going to evaluate every thing

and then the decisions get biased in those people's favor

so a progressively smaller group of people make the decisions

is people don't have time

generally the failure case

it is the coolest approach I have seen

but if we get this to work

and doing this decentralized

now note that there is a big implementation challenge to doing this

yes this is conceptually close enough to understand the dynamics around "using the value well"

see the example above. you come to "finance committee" wave (we all participate) and there is discussion, negotiation, approval that "yeah, this seems good value for network" then the people themselves can decide if they want to allocate their value to that approved project

1/ i don't want to get into blockchain economics right now but in principle there is value created. at a bare minimum, there is some ETH that comes for the project share of the mints, but I think it is more than that, anyway we discuss that later. 2/ if we are decentralized, that cannot go to 6529 Collections LLC 3/ It has to somehow to go the network participants 4/ but if it just goes to the network participants , the network will just keep it and soon there will be no teexels, no gelato etc etc and things will grind to a halt 5/ so some of that (% tbd) needs to be used to fund public goods for the network. e.g. the development team making the open source clients that allow us to use the network 6/ but picking a developer and negotiating a salary is not something that most people are qualified to do. 7/ so let's say there is the finance committee wave, we agree that Simo is great and we want him to continue and he wants to continue and his rate is X and we agree. 8/ one approach could be that the TDH wave then has voted and can now spend X on simo 9/ i say "too centralized" 10/ I want anyone who receives anything from the network that month to then opt-in and say "yeah, I will put my share of X toward simo" because this is a real signal. both if simo gets subscribed fast (good, committee is on the right track) but if our "party at webster hall" nobody really wants to put their identity behind funding it, that is also a useful signal 11/ but if people can opt out of everything (they can, they can protest), then their share gets reabsorbed into next months allocation. they can't opt out and just get more value for themselves

this was part of my Xmas 2024 assignment to myself

and has a decent number of checks and balances

before

I think it is an approach I have not seen

so think about that

people will just give it to each other

because it will be gamed obviously

Why not just let people spend directly?

I think I can share the main approach that I would like to take without getting into the whole blockchain. Basically the following: 1. Separate the deciding from the spending 2. E.g. have a wave, TDH votes, etc to decide what are approved spending. e.g. person X doing job Y for period Z at cost Q. this makes the list of approved things we will spend on 3. Then let every user allocate their specific spend to one of the approved things or opt out 4. but, and here is the trick, if someone does not spend their X allocation that month on one of the selected things, it goes back in the pool. 5. So #4 covers the freerider problem 6. #3 is an individual level veto on wasteful spending

for 1 (one) noun

they used to clear at like 40-80 ETH

or every efficient at spending money unnecessarily