Oceans of Wisdom

principles

so I think this is correct and in line with our principels

but it was useful to think through what a fair outcome is in a case like this where we are only paying for a fraction of the real costs to run the experiment (the lab, the lab equipment, the lab staff is paid by others; we are plus or minus paying for consumables)

note that this is not to say there will be any patents to begin with; chances are very low for this type of exploratory research

open access allows for knowledge transfer, but patentability means a company may later invest to bring forward a treatment

3/ there was a further discussion about what does public domain and CCO mean in this context. obviously the card art itself is CC0. but also obviously in a very large and expensive lab like this the default is that the person who is paying the gear (the lab) and the salaries (also the lab) owns the IP (usually patents etc). This is fair under the circumstances and normal (if we were to give them say six figures, not 5 figures, you can negotiate different terms but not for the amounts we are giving). Where he ended up on this is "the project plan is CC0 and on arweave", if this generates publishable work, it will be in an open access journal and the patent (if any) stays with the lab. this is fair and correct and how a lot of government funding now works

2/ there was some discussion about "how much detail to share"; I had encouraged "more" and to include both technical and non-technical descriptions of what he plans to do so that a civilian can understand at an analogy level and a more technically qualified person can also understand

1/ the lab in which he works is very much An Institution (tm). I have taken on the responsibility of figuring out how to pay them so we are not going to send any ETH to @[boredsurgeon] himself. Instead I will figure out in which capacity I can get them money. We will learn something

it also will bring up a whole series of interesting topics we will need to solve

on two dimensions: 1/ it is in my view kind of the reference example so far of what a science card should be, of what moving beyond art should be, of "let's give me a taste of the full breadth of capabilities of our network 2/ he is legit, he can do what he says

have come out of voting hibernation to vote for @[boredsurgeon]'s card

it might be that the designated payee is the person selling as the land

cover all cases

those are the two most general ones

add those two fields above

Designated Payee: Yes/No Designated Payee Name: free text Payment Address: As now

some of them might not be a donation

and I think it is important that it says who it is

I don't think donated is the word

but I would want this if I were doing this

(I am not his tax advisor etc etc)

and to do things explicitly and transparently

the purpose is to allow teexels to avoid income tax liabilty

that has to happen via other means

the purpose of this is not to verify

how is that any different than teexels saying "mint this card and I will save 10 dolphins by donating to the WWF"

into an explicit decision, field etc etc

so i want to make designated

etc etc

and absolutely under no circumstnaces want to send them money

but maybe they have had a 100 year fight with the WWF

maybe they like teezels and happy to share with him

so they can make their own judgement

who they are sending money to

it is important that the minters know this explicitly

and teexels makes a meme card and says send my share to the world wildlife federation

@teexels makes a meme card and says send me my share to teexels4eva.eth

so I want to separate out the case that

this above is what everyone uses

i think we need to explicitly explain when it was a delegation

like i feel we must be going out of our way to make text unselectable!

windows/brave

why is this the case

what is this?

@[simo] I am once again back to not being able to select text

I have started working through various logistics of doing the cards and now we will have to resolve specific issues. we will do one at a time. note issue #1 1/ someone does card 2/ the card involves money going, say, to a charity or university or even third party of any kind 3/ I can see people wanting to say "do not send to me, and I will send further down" for various tax reasons 4/ E.g. if someone mints a card and gets 50% of the mint proceeds and then gives it to a charity, they might have to declare income even if they then donate it 5/ it is cleaner if we can send the mint proceeds directly to the charity 6/ tangible action item: minter/creator can designate a different recipient (name and ETH address) 7/ presumably that can happen now but better to make it an explicit delegation to someone else 8/ "but what if the charity, university, etc" does not have an ETH address. 9/ that is a separate additional point we need to resolve. For now the easy one is deal with the case where they have an ETH address 10/ I would add 2 meta-data fields to the mint to handle this - Designate Name and Designate Address 11/ cc: @[prxt0] @[simo] @[6529Guardian] @[6529er] @[itsjpower] @[DarrenSRS] @[teexels] @[GelatoGenesis] 12/ I think we can implement version #10 above asap 13/ @[itsjpower] @[6529Guardian] think about how we bridge this for non-ETH native situations

there are a lot of unexplored relatively small and valuable things to do. in any case, I do not think the value added here will be less than the average meme card :)

I want to test "our network algorithm can unlock a door"

and you are right back where you started

and so on and so on