Oceans of Wisdom

front end

and we can review it there

yes but you can in principle submit a PR

you have access to it

the repo is open source!

I am not sure how this is relevant to the narrow question. the narrow question is this: i give 100 proxy rep to @[maybe] 1/ he can give +50 to @[simo] and + 50 to @[GelatoGenesis]. this is ok, we all agree 2/ he can give +50 to @[simo] and -50 to @[GelatoGenesis]. this is also OK, we all agree 3/ he accidentally gives +50 to @[simo] and then takes out -50 to @[simo] to to reverse his mistake. what we are discussion if in scenario #3 if he has used 100 proxy rep or 0 proxy rep. I think the case that this is 0 is reasonable and more intuitive

ofc

yes

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qleDIhn9qpWYToapfbK6TW2ByuuRSnerL3vqbi70rwc/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.lfnps38kcd8o

also if anyone wants to nerd out

interesting

yes indeed and, as such, intereseting

it give a focus and a cadence

and so on

then the next day you pick another page

you have to make 4 bullet points call to action for the login page

you do not need to group rewrite the whole site at once

I think this is a good suggestion by me

so long as you take one 1 topic per day

and you can do it

i think it is manageable

guys, right now the model is: - 100 people bombard the devs with 100 ideas, sometimes contradicting and mostly "devs do something" - for some substep of ideas, primarily communication oriented, fight it out among yourselves and propose a common text - the first task is "login page for wallet" - new text - Is it going to be hard to corral everyone's ideas - it sure is - Will everyone agree on direction - nope - do any of these things change if @[simo] has to integrate all your ideas? also no

so the goal is output there

not just another place to tell the Devs what to do

the idea of that one is that in that group People-Who-Are-Not-The-Devs are going to do some work!!!

very good!!!

not yet. let's get core consensus algorithm settled first

the more eyes on it the better

@[GelatoGenesis] @[simo] I think we can dump some performance indicators right into a wave or a page on the site

we should preserve our ability to do things if we need to

ASI (tm)

Quantum (tm)

it might change its consensus algorithm

it might hard fork in the future

ethereum is long

life is long

I would not lock The Memes

at some point, the admin access to the contract will move to a TDH-gated contract

and there are audit logs on each meme card that show the changes because ethereum stores in them in the transaction logs

we have changed metadata in the past

we have admin access to the contract

the contract is not locked

of course there is

these are all good ideas and we should flag and hold them. But we should focus IMHO on simpler things first. we already have a hyper complex system. what is not needed right IMHO is even more bespoke voting incentives. what is needed is: 1/ more participation 2/ #1 comes primarily from better communication (e.g. the website stuff we discussed last night) and imho the key KPI from this quarter (of showing that this is not all a system just to pick pepes) but to show how it can spread to network state scale because there are only so many things we can do at the same time, my suggestion is we focus on the things in #2 to drive #1

we should 'fix' this - maybe we don't calculate TDH during the mint itself? it is confusing for it to change

can't you do it with rep as a hack for now?

we can make a different icon for this since it was a different era, different process but absolutely should have an icon!

tagging out

ok gn for real!

:)