Oceans of Wisdom

"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

for the same reason that governments are not efficient at spending money

that drop the prices consistently high

there are a few whale believers

i think they are clearing at like 5? the initial clearing prices always struck me as ahead of the project's maturity

so we will discuss it all together

but it is part and parcel with the overall approach

i think i have a solution i am willing to test

so the solution has to avoid all the traps: 1. underfunding the team needed to run the show (classic public goods, open-source issue) 2. centralizing funding 3. 'spending other people's money' inefficiently

i mean they have a lot of money still I think but the mojo is a bit shaky

and also I am used to operating lean

and they did because it is not exactly coming out of their pockets"

and was like "well, I wouldn't have spent that much money for that"

and I would look at the proposals that got approved

i think over 20,000 ETH

much more than we ever had

so they had this massive pile of ETH

everyone gets the money

nobody gets the money

all the mint revenue goes to a group treasury (leave aside regulatory issues for a second)

he was in the right direction