---
# System prepended metadata

title: Factland Day 1 Transcript
tags: [factland]

---

# Factland UX Scoping Sesh Day 1 Recording

<div style="padding:75% 0 0 0;position:relative;"><iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/875206714?badge=0&amp;autopause=0&amp;quality_selector=1&amp;progress_bar=1&amp;player_id=0&amp;app_id=58479" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;" title="FactlandRaidGuild UX Scoping Session: DAy 1"></iframe></div><script src="https://player.vimeo.com/api/player.js"></script>

Travis Wyche  
This. And yeah, we can kind of jump into to this very kind of simple program that I've laid out for us today. Does anyone have any questions or concerns up front before we just jump into it? Okay. Okay, can everyone Is everyone seeing and hearing me okay fireworks? Is it a new gesture every time I do fireworks? I think WP sign is like balloons or something or confetti. All right. Yeah. So I did a pretty deep dive this morning, walk through all the components of the app so far, and also looked at the mural board that you guys sent over, which has some persona than some, some conversation about tokens and a preliminary user flow for one persona, specifically the curator along with a bunch of screens. So I took a look at all that stuff, and compiled my notes here. So I thought as far as today's session, we only have one or two hours. Scheduled, I'm willing to go full two hours if we feel like we need it. And we can remain somewhat flexible on that. I thought to start, I would basically speed run us through my initial observations and assumptions. I think this will provide some just, you know, a highly my highly biased, singular perspective as a tester, which I hope will serve some value for you, I think you'll you'll see that I've uncovered a kind of entangled nest of questions. And it seems to be pointing towards two primary objectives, which I'm hoping to be the the outcome for today, which you'll see here in the notes, basically, just making sure that we're being as concrete as, as possible as to the problem that we think that fact land as a product is trying to solve, and brainstorming a bit on the hypothesis hypothesis that we are using to approach that, obviously, a lot of work has been done, you guys have a fully functional demo, but I'm going to kind of question some of the underlying assumptions just to make sure I'm on the same page, and generally aligned towards what we want to cover. Moving into day two, which we can schedule at your convenience, of course. So again, I thought I'd speed run that it might take me 1015, maybe even 20 minutes to get through it because there is some philosophical, you know pithiness to it. You will see, I think you all got a link to this mural board here, I see some of you kind of scrolling around in there. So you'll see a kind of created a board here for us based on the organization of my notes. And there's a section on the landing page and the signup flow topics. The actual topic voting section, these are like, basically features of the app that I comment on briefly, I also made these larger spaces, I kind of do a deep dive into some of the vernacular in your FAQ, which raised a lot of not issues, but philosophically tickled me in various ways. And I think by answering those questions, it will kind of lead to some of the answers as to how you guys made decisions with your feature set. I think there's this big looming question about the tokenomics. And the underlying infra, which I'm anticipating you will lay a lot of that out for me today, although it's not apparent based on what you've shown me the demo and the mirror board. And then I think that's going to point towards some work that I'm going to propose for Next session on personas and user flows, which will ultimately I think, culminate into a separate proposal for ongoing design work if we agree on the scope. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, great. Well, I'm just gonna jump right into this then and walk you through all skin this since you have it in writing in front of you, but I'll try to cover all the main details. I tried to highlight them. So basically, looking at the app, first impression is that there's this kind of list of information. Let's Yeah, I guess we could actually bring it up. And look at it while I'm talking. Although I'm not going to do a total walkthrough of your build, since I'm assuming you guys are more familiar with it than I am. But looking at this first page here, you're kind of confronted with all of this wall of text without a lot of context. So my initial impression here as a UX person, and also someone concerned with this setup is, this is a profound opportunity for some walkthrough, some instruction, some orientation in general, right? Like, when I'm looking at this, I'm not really understanding what the main purpose of this app is, or what these topics are, or where they came from the order that they're organized. I mean, upon closer look, I see this really low key sorting function here. But I don't really know what that means, either. You know, if I'm just role playing a naive person, what I do notice is that there's some red highlighting happening. So the maybe intentional, maybe unintentional effect is that the more what I'm assuming to be false boats are the items that are highlighted the strongest. So there's, it immediately strikes me as slightly ironic that there's this product or this app called fact land, and where it's drawing my attention are the largest concentration of downvotes. So I think, you know, there's just little simple things like that, where color choices, color choice and also like, the visual information architecture, of what we are choosing to emphasize and draw attention to, could lead and steer attention in a way that's a bit more intentional and more comfortable for me as a user, more aligned with your goals as the builders. So my impression is to just jump right in and start clicking on it. But then I have all these questions. Right. So I Next jumped into the FAQ, to see if I could find answers there as to what I'm looking at. And so I kind of took this apart, step by step, as you'll see in the notes here. So under the fact land, what is fact land section? Again, it my first impulse is, can a fact be so clearly delineated? Isn't fact and fiction, somewhat of a spectrum, a gradient are these hard black and whites that we're trying to enforce here? There's also in this, you know, just in these two sentences, there's a lot of complexity, I think. So there's some leveraging against what's called a social and informational bubbles, that prevent conversation. And I think that's a wonderful kind of image that's painted, but it also kind of sounds just like social media. So I'm wondering at this point, if this terminology could be made more explicit, and I think here is an opportunity, really, which is a largely missed opportunity, I would say, to really get explicit about what fact lands solution is in relation to the problem that has been identified, you know, in a format that something like fact land addresses this problem. And he that he let us, you know, use it, this is the solution. At a high level. Now, this is me, I'm going to refrain from like getting up on my soapbox about this. But at a high level, I would really question about the ideal being ConsenSys based, which, you know, it's easy to kind of, colloquially use that as a synonym for digital democracy or just democracy and then having that be a like liberal ideal that the open Internet is working towards. But for me, as a full time Taoist, and someone that's deeply invested in the ideology of Decentralized Governance, something about dissensus is starting to leave a strange taste in my mouth strange flavor. It's, it kind of implies the singular universal and homogenous perspective. And yet, facts land, the product seems to want to welcome a diversity of perspectives of heterogeneity, which to me would point towards a dissensus culture rather than a ConsenSys culture. And I think we can come back to that, when I later in the document when I start to suggest some out of the box tools we could explore. But really, this brings up some questions as to what the primary motivation is for this product. So moving on, is this is this cadence, okay, for everyone, if I just keep blazing through it like this? And then I want to encourage you also, if you have questions, you can start making stickies over on this board here. Wherever you see that

Speaker 2  
being appropriate, there's a board I don't think I have it.

Travis Wyche  
Sure I can. Let's see. Where's our chat? I'll put it here in the zoom.

Speaker 3  
Okay. I mean, I'm assuming you don't want us to just jump in and try and answer these questions in Fine, but just kind of let you go through all the points first.

Travis Wyche  
I would suggest that because I think later in the FAQ, some of you guys provide some answers. And those kind of open up to some other questions. So I think you'll find I do have like one or two big questions for us to kind of start diverging on does that seem reasonable?

Speaker 3  
Yeah, I was just double checking you didn't want us to?

Travis Wyche  
Yeah, I would say if you if I am pushing buttons, and questions come up, make a sticky note of it and drop it somewhere over on the board. And we'll make sure to review that stuff either synchronously in this meeting, or asynchronously for sure. Okay. Okay, so I'll just keep blazing through them. For the Next section, how does it work? There's a few things that I've pulled out. So, you know, basically, you're stating anything that's fishy, or just interesting would be appropriate to submit. And for me, that's like the entire Internet. Fishy or just interesting? Yeah, human civilization. So I think, again, here's an opportunity for providing some constraints as to what kind of information is being curated and how it's being curated. Right? This is the How Does It Work section? I have questions about what kind of evidence, for example can be submitted what is encouraged or what is considered to be valid? And this is where I started to raise questions about the governance process more generally, who is doing the curating? How is that validation? Extended. And I think that really that process? Well, first of all, be very key from a UX perspective in informing how we build it. I think, also, for your users in the FAQ here, that's a key value proposition that they're going to want to read in a succinct and and concrete manner as possible. So yes, here is where another big concept comes up for me with the language of betting. Betting evokes Bing evokes, basically, you know, economic resources being flowed through an adversarial system, where there's clear winners and losers. For me, there's a lot of questions that begin to arise around how the economic economic incentives are being leveraged towards what kind of behaviors and if this, if the token nomic utility, and the economic utility of the app are supporting the kinds of behaviors that you're hoping to encourage and proliferate throughout the community of users, as well as for the product, as a shelling point to be proliferating within the larger web three conversation. It's a big can of worms, I'll come back to that in a few ways. In the steps ahead. As I already mentioned, there's a big point here, also an opportunity, and also, I think, a design space that hasn't been elaborated yet, at least based on what I can see as to who this jury is. It I think it's mentioned that they will be randomly selected, and that there's an opportunity for anyone to become one, but as to how that what that process is how that process works seems absolutely key. Because that's going to be the foundation for trust and legitimacy, both for the users and the community that's built around it as well as for the content itself. And that leads kind of questions about who those people are, and how is the individual validated. So here, again, all of these are kind of rabbit holes that I'm uncovering, and I'll rely upon you guys to kind of steer me as to what's important or what's not, I'm just diverging as much as possible right now. But I think there's a lot of opportunity to talk about the formation of web three centered trust networks, peer to peer validation, proof of humanity, maybe a kind of Gitcoin, Passport style flow, or integration where there's a stack of web three protocols that are used in tandem in order to provide both on chain value validity as well as ideological credibility to the statements that an individual makes. I think there's also an opportunity for us to explore many out of the box existing solutions at RaidGuild. We use this like I mentioned the Moloch Dow, a Moloch. Style Dow to render all of our governance and transactions as transparent as possible, right. There's a lot of sub layers of ideas to deformation and peer to peer trust kind of that the DAO solves for us. And as well as the distribution of roles, I could, you know, walk you through a whole stack, a whole tech stack that I kind of have in mind, that might work for you guys, that would be a combination of a Moloch style DAO with a hats protocol, which would distribute roles to members, and a kind of token curated registry, that might strongly supplement the automatic ordering and hierarchy of your existing I don't know what to call it, like your your topics, dashboard. But we'll get back around to that as well. In general, this raises a very key stone concept. For me, it's a kind of an inflection point. And I'm, I will be really curious to return to this and hear your thoughts on it. Basically, as you may or may not know, there's there's this kind of split, a kind of what I would call lunar punk and solar punk path, the lunar generally implies a strong emphasis on using web three tech for privacy, autonomy, anonymity, like upper case s sovereignty. Whereas the solar punk direction implies or emphasizes, I should say, transparency. And through that transparency, and through proof of humanity mechanisms, strong internal community cohesion and accountability. It also brings with it a kind of shadowy side not to, you know, not to make it convoluted or anything, but there's a surveillance aspect to that, where certain kinds of KYC, verification etc, is needed. So, you know, these are in many ways, mutually exclusive design spaces. There is a kind of gray area, of course, that we could consider this, this is really important for determining the onboarding flow of how users, jury members, curators, etc, all the different user personas are interacting with the app and interacting with each other, and touches on those issues of trust, and validation that had been brought up so far. So it would, you know, it's like, it's one thing to have a total a non cartoon character with no back history, and a obviously brand new wallet, that they've just been up making claims than someone that has 10 layers of social, like web to social media validation, and other human beings on camera, asking you to trust their perspective, like, you know, an influencer that has accumulated built up reputation, right? So that's something we should come back to for sure.

Speaker 4  
Can I jump in for a second? Sure, I know that. Twitter, or x, they have community notes, and they sort of do a, a blend of, you know, both of those concepts are talking about. In order to get into community notes, you have to provide a phone number, and you basically sort of have to kind of Doc's yourself, but when you're reporting or when you're writing notes on community notes, which is supposed to do fact check in and so forth, you have a pseudonym that you're posting under, even though you've been sort of like greenlit through the process of you know, on Twitter, so you can actually be in the community notes program. So it's anonymous, but it's kind of not in some ways. You know, if you go and look at the notes, and you know, might be vengeful, you know, Earth bear or something writing the note. Yep.

Travis Wyche  
So I would simply say at this point, this is a rabbit hole of that, I think the first step would be to define what the team's priorities are, you know, privacy over transparency very, very generally. And then based on that, there's a variety of different tech stacks that we could explore that range from web three Maxi to just, you know, which would be basically maximum web three ideology, but maybe a little bit clunky UX that we would have to troubleshoot. Whereas the, the other extreme alternative would be numerous out of the box onboarding solutions that are just straight up web two, but that lack all the web through integrity, and then a whole suite of hybrids in the middle that, you know, like Gitcoin Passport uses a variety of those things. Not to put too much emphasis on that but yep, so there's solutions there. Once we get to the bottom of what the motivation is, okay, so I'm just going to try to speed this up a little bit because I don't want This whole session to be just me talking. Next, under how to file a claim, there's some concepts that come up about the potential automation that seems to be implied here for basically anyone being able to submit a claim, and also to be able to email them directly to what appears to be this this Zapier automation workflow. So this, as I've highlighted here could be totally app breaking, we have to consider the black hat hacker design space here, that if there's tokens involved, that are going to have some liquidity, and that there's like cash money on the table in this bet type UX flow, that there's definitely going to be bots, probably an avalanche of them, and that they're going to be infiltrating and taking advantage of all of these outlets. To put it generally, I hope that exempts you paranoid, but it seems important to consider so sounds realistic. That's how it works. That's how it works. Been there. Yeah, yep. The other side of it, I think, is from assuming that we have all human actors, and that they have the best intentions, it seems like there's an opportunity in this submission form, which currently just has a title and a descriptor field, to provide some additional constraints to help increase the clarity and the validity of the content. So we don't need to get too deep into that now. But I would say that this is like very functional, you know, utilitarian form field, it could. This is a design space that I'd like to explore with you all about how to be more specific about what kind of information is submitted. And likewise, I think the relevant links, you know, so I could put any link in here, which is just a phishing attack waiting to happen. And, yeah, I'll just leave it at that for now. So moving on to the Next section, about the jury and issuing this verdict on this various content, it seems a little peculiar to me that the only options are true, false and undecided. It seems like by default, if it's under the scrutiny of a jury, it's de facto undecided. And really, it's at this point, more of an interesting question to understand as a user looking at this FAQ and approaching this app, what that governance process is for that jury, as I've already mentioned previously, so like, how's the jury selected? What's the bureaucratic structure or standard operating procedure of said, jury? How are those decisions rendered off chain and then on chain? And then how are they ratified to become a decision that now every other user has to abide by somehow? And then more significantly, I think, in a way, or at least just as significantly is how does that truth that's objectively rendered on the fat planned platform, then migrate back out to larger social media beyond this walled garden? There's also a token utility consideration there, right, it seems to me a little bit counterintuitive that jury members would be paid, that the bet payouts are based on this kind of financial gamification of participation rather than truth. It seems like there's a really delicious, and obviously very complex design space there about how to properly incentivize and compensate qualia over quanta, right, like the merit of the of the statement, rather than the kind of collusive mechanics of having the majority support it. That seems like a keystone concept for the whole app, in fact, which I touched on in a few different ways in this section. Okay, so Next section, why should I trust fac land? I think at the end of the day, the point of building this as a web through tool is to take trust off the table. You know, that might be an extreme perspective of which we could contemplate more of a nuanced middle ground, but I think this has the potential to be a trustless and permissionless experience. And in order to do that, I think we're talking about community design, governance design, and the underlying infrastructural design, and how all of those pieces come together in the front end in the UI. There's some big gaps in my understanding at this moment. And they largely root in why you have what is this assumption that this faculty and experience is built upon an adversarial dynamic? Because they think it My intuition tells me that the goal is actually to facilitate the opposite of that, to move away from an adversarial dynamic towards a positive coordination dynamic, which, yeah, again, rabbit hole there. There, one point I wanted to emphasize was, you mentioned that there's some cutting edge anonymity tech, under the hood here, I hope that's true. But there's no indication of it as a web three native that sounds super PSAs. And I want to know what that is, I want you to show me what that is. And I think that's a huge value proposition of what you've built. And, you know, there's, there's a lot of different threads that could pull there, such as whether you guys are building in public, and if this is open source, or whether it's proprietary IP, and what kind of community you're trying to build around this, whether it's just a community of users, or also a community of builders. And if there's a larger conversation, that the fact land team wants to have with various kinds of zi K, innovations that are happening around the space, etc. This is a very important technical conversation that we're building up towards here. Yeah, I've already touched on the incentive stuff. And, oh, this was kind of interesting. You guys use explicit language about demographic representations within the US. I wonder if that has to do with some legal jurisdiction loopholes that you guys are trying to jump through. But my gut reaction is, truth is not bound to a demographic, or facts are not necessarily culturally specific, when they live on the internet, of, you know, a web three narrative that the community that I am associated with is kind of building upon is kind of making these national identity borders more diffuse, more transparent, more porous. And I wonder if that might be a key ideological concept for us to double click on here, it kind of comes back to some of the solar versus lunar punk stuff that I mentioned earlier. Um, and I think I touched on most of this other stuff. So here's the thing that I'm gonna highlight for us to form a conversation around. I know, and I feel a little bit bad. I want to apologize a little bit that I just gave you an avalanche of information. But this is, I think, a representation of the kind of complexity that we're dealing with here. So my core question after all of that is basically is truth or the facts that we're trying to render with this product? Do we need to start from the assumption that this is a zero sum game? Might we consider a design space of facts as a nonzero sum game where everyone stands to benefit from that, you know, democratic, for lack of a better word exchange. And I think what we're, the main value proposition is to generate a culture around an analyzing evidence, I think the main value add is something moving towards a decentralized, like a thoroughly decentralized, trustless and permissionless community for interrogating those assumptions. And I think that likely means

Travis Wyche  
not trying to render something that's completely objective and bias LIS, because I think that's kind of impossible, unless you're just building the theory on blockchain itself as credible neutrality but, but rather to just be as explicit in your team's bias as possible in the bias of the product, or the platform as possible, in order to facilitate the community to surface their own biases. And to critique each other's biases in like manner. I think I think that's the assumption that I've kind of built up based on my experience so far. So then, go ahead a

---

Speaker 2  
little bit. I think one of the one of the sort of mechanics that we believe sort of activates some of the economics of this would be the adversary illness. So I'm trying to figure out how cooperative people come together, and then generate a rewards pool, sort of, from the bottom up. So the idea being, you know, you get oil companies fighting against climate change, you know, folks, and that seems like there's a natural disposition to argue, and people get it. sort of rewarded for putting forth the strongest argument for this side that they believe is true. And that would entice people with a different point of view a different maybe agenda to go to come in and flesh out the other side. And you see this happen a lot in just sort of public debate spaces. And the this the, you don't really have to add a lot of red meat to the, to get people to argue as much. But what we add is a layer of bringing people who have who have different points of view together, and then having it go to a more neutral arbitration panel to like try to figure out who's got the better the argument. So there are definitely some flaws in that meaning. If somebody puts up a claim and stakes on it, and nobody comes to contest, we currently don't have a mechanism to make anything happen. It just sits there. Which feels wrong. And we want to I think that's a good thing for us to be thinking about, like, oh, well, what if you did some kind of interest you staking you hold your stake on something that made you can issue a provisional label based on the fact that, you know, everybody's piled in on this, and there's a big staking pool, and that that people would generate interest on it. As long as they maintain their stake. And eventually, maybe somebody from the other side would come out and say, Oh, look, that's a really big staking pool, I want to see if I can take it. But I'd love to hear your thoughts about how do you get in the betting dynamic is just really about generate, because the big hole in like a lot of the fact checking that happens right now is nobody gets paid for it. It's, it's really not a kind of work that's validated by other than nonprofit kind of foundational support is really goes on unpaid. And like tons and tons of people doing this for free. You know, you see it all the time in the crypto space, people are doing like investigation, rugs and trying to figure out who these guys are, who stole what coins, they're very, very good at it. But, you know, they get maybe get a donation from the from the community at the end of the day, but there's no mechanism in that process for actually rewarding the people and presumably enticing a large motivated group of people to participate. So that was I think, sort of the advantage of the adversarial kind of point of view for us. I know it doesn't solve philosophically all of the all of the issues. And it does have some weaknesses, but the one thing I think has going for it is it's a clear path, to be able to build rewards pools and to draw in a kind of economic viability for the whole thing.

Speaker 3  
Or even more foundationally than that, to me, it's it feels like one of the initial things we talked about was, it should cost you something, too, make a claim or else trying to combat like, you can just say anything, like if you think it's, it will be beneficial to you to say this thing, then you can just say it and pretend that you think it's true. And there's no real accountability of like, oh, is this a good faith argument and bad faith argument. And so the idea being that like, okay, fact, land is a way for you, okay, you're saying that, if you really believe that, then let's go over here and put something of value to that. So that it's actually mean something. Because then, you know, if you're not willing to do that, then I can't really take you seriously.

Speaker 2  
If I also have some of those, some of the sort of attack vectors that you're talking about, would be mitigated somewhat by that. So if someone is going to like, post 1000 claims, in fact, land, until you actually stake them, they kind of go into an invisible bucket bucket, they're not until you stake. And so that means someone's going to have to buy a bunch of our tokens in order to get them visible. And that's just going to prevent people from doing it as a kind of like, you know, sort of overwhelming attack, you know, they were just going to like post millions and millions of claims automatically on faculty and see what happens, nothing's gonna happen unless they also put money against them. So it's kind of people said, If you charge a quarter of a penny for each email should be no spam. So if you charge people, even a minor amount of money to like to make things go on, on fact planned, then I think it really does kind of prevent people from malicious actors from just doing it willy nilly for no reason other than to kind of overwhelmed the sight span.

Travis Wyche  
Well, I'm not saying you're wrong about that. I wouldn't critique that at all. But I would comment that that is immediately jumping to an assumed solution. Whereas for me, I would want to dwell, I would, I would encourage us collectively to dwell more on that problem space a little bit longer. So what I'm hearing is, you have, you're anticipating a problem for incentivizing fact checkers to basically do a good enough job like to have a correlation between incentive and quality of work, which currently does not exist in a non adversarial way. And that, I would say, I would offer that as a hypothesis, there are at least three different realms or like buckets of funding resources that are that we could explore. One is direct incentivization, which could happen from the corfac land team, but could also be managed in in terms of a DAO as decentralized ops, in which there would be a certain kind of a certain allocated Treasury with a certain port portion of it dedicated towards those incentives. And then you have another problem, which is fundraising, or like, you know, crowd fundraising or whatever it might be. And then the bias that comes inherent with the expectations from where those funds come from. The second would be some kind of, for example, public goods funding, that could be in the form of proactive grants raising, which would basically serve as that allocation of funds before the work is accomplished, dedicated and set aside. So you know, how many fact checkers that you can hire, or retro actively, which is a harder sell for certain kinds of psychological persona, but has got you know, it has a lot of traction, and a lot of positive use cases, retroactive public goods funding in the space, I would say, there's a third, which would be hybrid things like, within RaidGuild, there's a recent product that we built in collaboration with Kevin and Waukee, in the green pill network, which was a quadratic Lenster. So is using built on top of the lens protocol, a basically, you know, Twitter style social media type board, where there was it was connected with a Gitcoin, Grants Round for certain kinds of either event based or topic based subject matter. Basically, the idea is, the community pools funds together to positively incentivize a certain kind of content to be published on that platform, which is identified through peers recognizing each other's tags, and also through like a kind of tagging, you know, self tagging system, hashtags, social media tag system, there's, there's many others that we could explore from that exist within Web two. And within Web three, I would say that if we could linger within that problem space a little bit longer, and, you know, try to converge towards what exactly that problem is, with fact checkers, what their responsibilities are, how the team, faculty and team and also the community of users that you're trying to attract, might identify and value that problem space, I think it could point towards a lot of possibilities for what we could research and experiment with. The way I would want to personally suggest you could start with that, if we can collectively exercise the patient's to do so would be some comparative and competitive analysis between those forms. Some, you know, identifying what currently exists and how it's been used, and what the successes and failures are in those strategies, as well as jumping into some user interviews, which is kind of dependent upon the persona creation. So once we can get kind of clear as to who this ideal, let's say, for example, a user that would be the fact checker, someone that says, I have this skill set, I want to do this, but there's this problem, you can't pay me, so I'm not going to do it. So that's a coordination failure. If we could talk to that person, and understand or, you know, ideally a pool of that kind of person and understand what their psychology is. I think my assumption, which might just be my own bias reveal here would be that there'll be a variety of different kinds of incentive mechanisms that that person might be interested in. That would not be reducible to simply an economic one. Of course, at the end of the day, you know, Cash is king or whatever. But there's also cultural incentives social incentive reputational incentive. And if there's a token, there's a, you know, like a effect token, there is a larger kind of conversation about rewarding within that native token does that amount to equity or ownership and the platform itself. There's the governance of the content on the platform, but then there's also the governance of the platform itself. Maybe, I don't know that that's a conversation I'd be curious to have with you guys, if you have any plan, as a team to exit to community, because that would be a strong governance incentives that you could entice people with, through, for example, a variety of techniques. I'm just speculating now. But like, if there was a fact token, AirDrop, you could bootstrap governance. And there could be, you know, a lot of that compensation could could could be dealt with as, as a problem space upfront, just throwing a bunch of stuff on the table there, I wouldn't necessarily run to that conclusion that you've, that you've identified.

Speaker 2  
Yeah, I think we've all of those ideas that you just mentioned, are things we're actively talking about. I mean, I think our goal is to really completely decentralize this and go with a completely DAO driven governance model, and basically dissolve our corporate entity and hopefully have a strong enough community culture that it'll run on its own.

---

Speaker 3  
Everything we have answered, I mean, some things, I think we definitely want to have a non financialized governance, token, possibly non transferable. And so that kind of complicates the usual playbook of just airdropping governance and having the token value be driven by some sort of stake and or agency or some ownership in the in the thing. So I think it is, we do need to figure out like, what, what the tokenomics are on. On that side, I think we have a clearer idea of what we at least want to try on the governance side. And then, but I think you're right, that the paying the juror, I think where our thinking was on that was, it can be pretty labor intensive to sit there and like even like kind of the the toy examples that, that we have to like, sit there and like read everything, kind of like you might have your own ideas about what needs to be researched. And then you're like doing your own kind of Googling and stuff. And I just from, I think, maybe our team's sense of fairness, we're like, well, people should get paid for that. But I think you're right, that people would end up doing it for other reasons. But it's kind of like we it was more of a fairness, determination of like, well, if you're going to spend all that time, it seems exploitative to just kind of give you some reputation tokens or some.

Travis Wyche  
Yeah. I hear you. I think I think that's a fair assumption to make. But it's also a jumping to conclusion, a solution that I would want to try to suss out a little bit more, and see if there's some, you know, of course, the ideal solution here is one that empowers that community, and is aligned with the kind of culture that you're trying to create around this discussion space, and, you know, carries forth those ideological values. And so I'm kind of breaking this down into two hemispheres and trying to understand where your ideological propositions or prepositions are as a team, and then what kinds of mechanics are going to best serve and empower you guys to build the tool that you want to build?

Speaker 2  
Yeah, I would say like, my guiding principle has always been, how do you do something that's completely unsupervised? Where there is no kind of committee or sort of hierarchical relationship between a kind of a core driving team and the users so that there's a mechanic and there's a, an architecture that once you start, once it starts, it just doesn't, it just works on its own? So the thing about adversarial betting is, well, the money comes because people comes from everybody who participates on the platform, you're not looking to like have a foundation grant from some group, they have to apply for every year. It's like, if it's working, people are gonna show up with a wallet and they're gonna spend and then Dustin to just generate revenue and it's going to generate rewards for a Everybody automatically and you don't need to have a decision maker kind of carved out or kind of a core team that drive the fundraising component of the of the, of the community, it just happened. So I think we're trying to come up with these, these ideas that are going to be when you step out of the way that the things got enough structure and legs and incentives to kind of come just like an organ, like an organism is going to start to feed itself is going to grow, it's going to like manage its own its own kind of temperature, and all that kind of stuff. So that's kind of what I've always been thinking about, how do you do this in such a ways that you kick all the organizational legs out from underneath this, at some point, it doesn't fall over. And it just keeps running on its own. And it's built resiliently enough, that if people come to attack it, that there's some there's some mitigations that are built in. So like I say, if somebody decides like a PR company, or somebody with a state actor comes after it, and they have basically endless amounts of money to float to fund Hamas propaganda, or vice versa. We believe that adversarial system is going to like, is going to attract antibodies, because it's like, oh, here's a big spender, who wants to push a particular narrative on the world. And they're trying to get these labels, but we're going to pose that and if we're correct, we get, we can, we can now muster equal resources to count or because the reward pool is big enough, it's going to attract people in and it's going to be spontaneously funded. So if there's an outbreak of, you know, oil, industry, PR firms just suddenly started throwing crap at the wind of the wall and on faculty and I, ideally, that would instantly attract a group of people with a different point of view, it would then do equal amounts of research, and it would be a contest of that, we would then play out with a resolution process that's completely transparent, but hopefully incorruptible because people won't know who's on the jury and can't bribe them.

Speaker 3  
And maybe the good background is that we're currently thinking of like, the Farcaster workcast model, where like, the fact land protocol would just be open for anyone to use and build on and that would kind of, you'd face the same kind of like, kind of spam bot dynamics there. But ideally, like, you know, the, the clients themselves are mitigating that to whatever degree that their audience cares about that and giving people tools to sort through just like the information that's, that's being added to the protocol. And then we would just be like the first client with and so then we can acknowledge our, our biases or team, but then also be able to say, but if you don't like it, then you can go and build your own view of the activity and enable the kinds of behaviors and activity there that are important to you.

Travis Wyche  
Okay, um, there's some good stuff here. And then I appreciate you laying it out the way that you have. I think that's going to that's definitely a really interesting design space. I think we could definitely talk about that for hours, I'm going to try to formulate some more succinct responses that we can kind of chew on asynchronously. Because I have questions about how the bureaucratic structure of the curation and the juries, which seems like a social attack vector interface with the potential ideal of a permissionless and trustless system that becomes an organism that runs itself. So for me, that remains a very open question about how the what's the term that you were using good faith, good faith actors interface with an economic bet system, which, by its adversarial nature seem to encourage bad faith actors. I don't have necessarily anything specific to push back on. It just for me is a very ticklish squirmy concept that I think that we that deserves to be unpacked a bit more. There's that I think that's really a core value prop.

Speaker 2  
Yeah, I mean, I think our part of our inspiration is like prediction markets. And it's sort of Yeah, it's hard to imagine how to abuse it. prediction market, given the fact that you have to put up money on an outcome, you can waste your money and I guess, but you're betting against something and a prediction market doesn't really. There's a physics to it. It's like the truth, whatever the whatever happens to be the the outcome distributes the rewards to the people who are on the right side of that bet. I think the weird indication for us though, in that space, is that you're really ultimately not betting on the truth or falsity of a proposition that you're betting on, whatever we think a group of people that our system pulls together to vote on this are going to decide. And so that's it's kind of like it's abstracted, right? You're like saying, you're trying to guess, what the jury is going to do, as opposed to which whether the facts are true or false, which I can imagine that could get to some weird, weird places where you're incentivized to kind of guess, weird outcomes and could drive bedding in strange directions. It really boils down to what is the composition of that jury? And how does that jury get pulled together? And how do we make sure that we have reasonable assurance that that group is going to provide a good faith answer based on the evidence that's been compiled by the community? And I think that's sort of to me this, the biggest weakness of this system is who's who's going to be on that jury? And how do we guarantee that that group is going to be collective the collective intelligence of that group is sufficient to produce reliable, reliable, reliable? So

Travis Wyche  
I would question the need for a jury at all, honestly.

Speaker 3  
This is kind of based on, you know, the citizens assembly model, or in the research done around like the randomized like a statistically relevant random jury is comes to like, as good or better conclusions and selected experts. And if that is not true, then yeah, this whole product kind of like collapses. But I think like we are, we want to get it to into enough hands where we can assemble that significantly, like randomized a jury and then like, see what kind of results like 100 out of 5 million people chosen randomly, generally produce on a set of claims.

Speaker 2  
Yeah, cuz I think one of the one of the defenses of having a good jury is that, that we're juries pulled together randomly, but the size of that pool is really just dependent on the size of the community. Right, right. You had like 10 million people using faculty, and you could generate juries of 100,000. And I think that point becomes very difficult, even if you're trying to, he was trying to run bots on it. I think you're gonna, you gotta be selected amongst the pool, you can do things like random elimination of votes from the jury pool as well. So that

Travis Wyche  
I have to say, I'm really having a hard time understanding the the assumption that is pointing towards the need for jury at all. Like if it's a truly decentralized community with Decentralized Governance, and everyone that's participating also has skin in the game, then what why isn't every user also a jury member? Like why isn't every participant also capable of some degree of governance power? That's fundamentally what a DAO is. So the imposition of a jury is built upon the assumption that there needs to be a centralized authority. But then you're you also seem convinced that the best way of selecting those people is through some kind of sortition of randomness. That is a smaller subset of non expertise, non specialists. I'm not quite, I'm not quite following the logic there. I think that it might be adding both some complexity and a socio cultural attack vector, that adds some additional layers of gamified complexity that we could easily design out through a more elegant solution of distributing voting shares in relation to merit

Speaker 3  
or panics this the problem that it's trying to solve is removing the black box that people can point to to say like you need an Oracle right to settle the you need some sort of Oracle to say that this was this outcome happen this way. It was true false, undecided, whatever the the label is, and the mechanic Behind that Oracle, by, I think the hypothesis is need to be understood, non technical and participatory where, if you have, since anyone can be selected to be a jury, anytime, if enough people participate over a long enough period of time, everyone will have sat on a jury at some point, then you can't really point to, you know, this person or this group of people are just biased towards this being true. Whereas anything else I can think of is like self selecting to whoever, if everyone can, can vote and make a make a claim either true false undecided, the ones who actively decide to vote on on that in a certain way is going to be it's going to select for a bias. Is that not what you're thinking?

Travis Wyche  
I mean, I see the problem that you've identified, I just don't align with a jury being solution to that necessarily. I don't see how reducing the size, you know, well, first of all, the same thing could be handled through like a delegate Tory process of a dowel but, but simply by reducing the pool of potential jury members or voters, I don't see how that solves the problem of the prisoner's dilemma. In that instance, like there, it still comes down to a choice. And I understand that that's how it connects to the tokenomics. So if there's enough staked, then there's a, an enough accumulated negative incentive to not be a bad actor, etc. But I think we could, we could discuss this again, I think for hours, I want to really make sure because I'm aware of the time here we're at we've gone through an hour now, I would like to open up the space a little bit for you guys to educate me, as to what I should know that I can't know based on just interacting with the demo, I think specifically, I seem to remember in a in our first conversation that maybe you guys are talking about some pretty novel infrastructural mechanics, maybe your own chain, I can't quite remember, I think it's pretty important to review some of that kind of stuff, to talk about the must haves, and and you know, and then also identify the more like flexible spaces of the tokenomics design, I would like to understand if raid guild might be able to, you know, if I have someone in within my midst that might, I might be able to bring on to the Next call, to allow us to go into some of that conversation at a technical fidelity that I personally cannot offer. I can talk about the social cultural governance design, and the UX UI patterns, but I can't talk about the attack vectors of the smart contracts, and the economics, things of that nature. And I'd really like to set us up with, you know, this jury selection process, the curated curation selection process, and some of those incentive mechanisms that you're touching on. I really haven't seen any of that laid out. And it seems like, you know, at the end of this call, I'd really like to be clear. So that I can go off on my own and create a proposal that'll be meaningful for our Next session. And I think that's going to be personas, and some story creation. But at first, I just want to make sure everything's really on the table. Does that make sense? There.

---

Speaker 2  
Keith kind of put pulled together draft white paper, which discusses a lot of our notions of tokenomics are still kind of a work in progress. But

Speaker 3  
it's, it's really like, I'm worried that the the stuff in there that I just kind of like copy and pasted just to like as placeholder would be taking, like as a serious proposal or something. So that's why I hesitated to send that over. But I can maybe clip out parts of that that like I, you know, we're all kind of agreed on at this point, and kind of send you what we're thinking.

Speaker 2  
I think I think the sort of the three sort of key elements I think that distinguish, or that are our thoughts about tokens, kind of diverge from the sort of the standard route is we don't think government is tokens should be up for sale. You have to earn them and they're non transferable. I think that protects us from sort of, you know, somebody just Buying a majority stake, taking the treasure, which we've seen happen to a bunch of people. The second thing is Dev, this idea of delegation of votes. Everybody who has governance tokens has to choose delegates. And they can separate those delegations out for various kinds of special like specialty specializations. If you don't feel comfortable thinking about the code base, you can delegate your votes that have to do with technical specifications and design, you know, building, actual functional product, and so forth. So those are the two big things. And then the rest of it, I think, is pretty standard in terms of having a financialized token that we could AirDrop and ultimately turn into something with some kind of liquidity for people down the road. Assuming we can get through all the regulatory hurdles about tokens in the US.

Speaker 3  
Yeah, but but as far as like the the financial token or what you'd actually be staking and receiving as reward. That's pretty straightforward. I think we just want to do like an ERC 20. We don't need our own our own chain, we're kind of playing in the defending space because they're, they're funding us at this point. And their, and their, their architecture does allow you to do a lot more on chain for less. Which is like if we want to put as much of these act actions on chain as possible, just pragmatically, you know, can get it done better. And then John, the other core members used to work at Definity. So he's like, you know, you can just make this stuff work super fast. And understands the security behind it and everything. But yeah, I think moving to EVM or beyond just being chain agnostic, would be ideal. But like EVM in the short term.

Travis Wyche  
Got it. So for the first, for the initial launch, it's going to be on what's the Definity chain, that's like interlocutor, right? But then you sound like you might be interested in having the product to be more chain agnostic. Maybe either one app with cross chain functionality or unique variance built for the various communities of other chains. But that's like something kicked down the roadmap quite a bit after proof of concept, right?

Speaker 3  
Yeah, and we even talked about like, you know, having quests to walk people through the, the flows, once we figure out what those are. And those could be like, you know, NFT badges that are on EVM chains, and those don't need to be related to defend it at this point anywhere. Got so any opportunities like that? We're free to just play around?

Travis Wyche  
Are there? You know, I'm not I have to admit, I'm not really familiar with ICP? Are there nobody is? Are there bridges between the theory and main net or other popular all chains? You know, some stuff like

Speaker 3  
that on says, Yeah, John says he can hambridge it wherever, wherever we need. So. Okay.

Travis Wyche  
Yeah. And what about deploying the core product to other chains? Is that something that is of interest to pursue? Or is currently off the table? Or otherwise?

Speaker 3  
Yeah, and I think so I think it's, it's useful in a way these canisters, use smart contracts where you can run a lot more like code, and it just doesn't cost you anything. And they're comping us like the the processing costs or the gas. It's helpful to have John doing that, because then we can work on the actual mechanics of like, where do you get that random, random seed that like selects the jury. And if we can iterate in those canisters on the IC, versus like paying a bunch of gas over here, to figure out the same things? Yeah. Then we can iterate a little bit faster over here and then when we're sure of something, then we can instantiate it. On EVM chains

Speaker 4  
Absolutely one thing that I like about ICP is that users can interact with it without having to set up a wallet and all sorts of stuff. You know, they can create their ID on the internet computer site, and then they're, you know, off and running. You know, it's, it's a lot easier than a lot of other chains. At least that's what I've noticed.

Travis Wyche  
Yeah, that's absolutely something that I'll have to do some more research on to explore. And it threw me off a little bit from onboarding. Because I, you know, I opted for, for bypassing that and just adding my email and password, but then I was still given tokens. So it remained a real question for me. Where those tokens were held and whether the whose custody would they were in? It seems like obviously, not mine. And you know.

Speaker 2  
They're just kind of like points you get into in Donkey Kong. Right. But just we're just kind of simulating some of the processes. And that's the demo token launch that we're modeler is how do we make those into real custody tokens that you can control? And you can better transparent, auditable and all that stuff, and we can't just take them away from you. I think, Keith can wipe out your account instantly.

Travis Wyche  
Yeah. But the goal is that after the demo becomes the v1, MVP rollout, that those would be actual tokens in my actual wallet that would have actual liquidity. I think I understood that, but I would. So a lot of so there's a few different things here, just to state the obvious, make sure we're all on the same page. So part of it is the amount of friction in the onboarding flow, like the UX of the onboarding flow, and what kind of technical aptitude is required, which will be a vetting mechanism, social vetting mechanism and a technological vetting mechanism for various kinds of users being the other second question is the self custody of the tokens which will be extremely important for all of the adversarial gamified dynamics that we've been discussing? Not your keys, not your coins, right. So I'm familiar with the UX on a theory of main net and related chains, I'll have to familiarize myself with ICP. And maybe there's some interesting, it seems like more streamlined, but maybe also comes with its own set of problems that I'll have to read up on. The third in terms of UX perspective, I'm wondering how much of this is going to be destined for on chain ratification? The fact line app itself, right, so like, every single interaction could potentially be tokenized and could potentially be on the blockchain and immutable therefore, or alternatively, that creates the highest possible transparency, the highest possible immutability, and also the highest possible gas price. So that kind of leads to a chain selection, emphasis where if everything's gonna be on chain, then you want to be using the chain where those gas prices are almost negligible, such as Gnosis Chain, optimism. excetera, not main net, obviously. And I don't know ICP again. I see PSG really, okay.

Speaker 4  
Yeah. Yeah. Alternatively, in a lot of ways, you know, I was really surprised by it, because I hadn't really looked at much before this either. The other thing, I've been adding some notes on the board, you know, one thing that's going to need to be addressed is, you know, a burn mechanism for the tokens because if you just have endless inflation, you know, there's got to be a way to you know, deal with that

---

Speaker 2  
Yeah, and I think for us even at this stage, I think what would be great is just thinking through like at the top of your your feedback was just what is the user experience like when they first arrive at the what kind of context do we need to like make those that list of claims a little bit more self explanatory, maybe more call to action? You have some kind of forum where people like steel submit your claim here is I got it, like just basic stuff like that, which I think currently, I think you're right, people come to that URL and like, What the hell is this? How do I participate? It's not self explanatory. So when he kind of guidance around helping us make the site a lot more obvious, in like, anybody who arrives you know, immediately How to participate and what it's for, and all of that good stuff. And I do like the idea of spending some time on some alternative models for this, as opposed to just say, Oh, we've already decided adversarial juries, juried decision making is what we want to build, maybe we should spend some cycles, just examining some alternatives. And then you can guide us to some interesting, interesting ways to solve the same problems. I think that would be super useful for us, just so we don't, we're not we will have a little bit more conviction that we've, we've actually examined, we're falling in love with the problem, not our solution. described before, I think we have been working on this sort of from a little bit of a smaller group for a couple of years now. And so I think it's true, we kind of lose sight of alternate paths. So that'd be a super useful use of our time. And what else?

Speaker 3  
I think also, what you're maybe detecting or maybe explains, what you've seen so far, is like we just have a bias towards action, right? Like, wait, what you see, we're totally like, not necessarily ambivalent about but just totally open to like, oh, this might not, this might not work, this might not be the best thing. But we wanted to do something rather than, like, get caught in like all the very real rabbit holes that you identified. And so the thing before you is just like, our attempt not to get caught in the mud, and then just keep moving forward to, to learn and do stuff. But in by no means is like, this is perfect. And we've now, of course,

Speaker 2  
yeah, yeah, I would say it's clearly not because the take has been

Travis Wyche  
perfect off the table. Something like this is never going to be perfect, and all of its social minutiae. But it really becomes a question about what kind of invitation you want to extend to that community, you're trying to attract when the product is released. And if you're talking, if you're, if you're trying to onboard, you know, builders, and developers and designers, and maybe this rumination, now upfront, will provide a few different things that will align you as a team to converge around what those core ideologies are, which will help inform the articulation of the problem statement, which will inform the design design decisions we make, so that when the MVP is rolled out for public, it's as best as it could be for that particular team. But that also identifies a series of bounties, so that the community can continue ideating upon it. And we didn't even approach this idea, but potentially forking it. So that it there could be variations at every level, whether it's the economic modules, the governance modules, the affordable UI, you know, as well as the underlying adaptation to various kinds of infrastructure based on the the onboarding UX and wallet requirements and gas fees and things like that, like, for me, in my opinion, that is a lofty goal, but one that's definitely achievable. If we can kind of break it apart into certain kind of milestones, and kind of helps, like, you know, build some constraints around. What what to focus on for this Next iteration also in relation to your timeline and budget?

Unknown Speaker  
And you're right, that is Yeah, I think

Speaker 2  
that was gonna say that fork, that fork ability is definitely something that we're committed to like, say, Look, we don't want to be like the one and only instance of this, we want to build, saw, you know, sort of code that's extensible enough that other people can run with it and put their own skins on top, but their own, build their own daps create their own, like, cultural and, you know, governance models around how they want to organize it, so that we're just sort of the first customer of our own product, but we hopefully aren't the last

Travis Wyche  
one. Great. That sounds like a very solid perspective. I like that. So Evan was mentioning, maybe just focusing on some of those comments that I made at the beginning about orientation education walkthroughs, refining some of the language around the FAQ. That seems like definitely want. Evan also mentioned me he'll list of some of these alternatives, trying to elaborate them in more detail. And then having that serve as a foundation for a conversation for what happens if we do it this way, you know, basically providing some comparative or competitive, maybe both analysis on other existing out of the box solutions. And then Keith, I think you were about to mention focusing on on personas. So this is the latter half of the document that I prepared, where I was just providing some feedback on that mural board. And I won't go through the whole thing, you can peruse it yourself. But basically, I'm questioning how those original personas were made, the emphasis of those sections, like beliefs, goals, technical literacy motivations, the content in that form is or in that grid is really around the subjective ideology of the user. But in my opinion, the persona should be built around that user's approach to the product. In, you know, like, there's, there's a little bit too much of an emphasis on their political orientation, and not enough emphasis on, for example, with friction, or frustrations, pain points, those those really should be UX UI pain points, not ideological pain points. So if I were to re approach the creation of personas, it would be from that point of view of understanding what the pain points are of the product, for example, not of how I as a whatever I am libertarian, or something I'm not really but like my political orientation is able to use this tool for my own agenda. And really, the persona should allow us to as a team align around what those mechanic mechanical features are that empower me to, you know, basically achieve my goals. The ideological stuff will be the content of the platform. And I you know, I wonder how you guys think about this actually, like, it doesn't seem like there needs to be any kind of explicitly political emphasis on this on this platform. This could be used as a tool for making decisions for like, basically, it's agnostic of content, right, potentially, if you wanted to pitch it that way. And so I, I see you all nodding your head. So I think like the persona is really should represent that. And then from there, user stories would be built from from on top of those flows would be identified. And in the mirror board, I see that there is a flow for cure curator, persona. But I think that there's multiple that deserve to be sketched out. I think there's also flows for the tokenomics toes for the flows, excuse me, for the governance structure flows for the larger community design, that could potentially be added on to that seems to me, like, you know, it would be a huge value add to make some of those assumptions more explicit, but I ultimately leave it to you guys to decide what you want to focus on and emphasize moving forward. Yeah, go ahead.

---

Speaker 3  
Well, I was gonna say, I think we've had a lot of confusion and debate over personas, like who, who should we try and get excited about this? This app, I know you're talking about just like, who's going to do what with with the app, but I think we could also use a strong opinion of somebody saying, like, you should focus on developers or you should focus on this group, or that you should focus on raid guild members or you know, any, anything, so we can just like, kind of focus on that and then move on to the Next thing, because right now, we're kind of like, just

Speaker 2  
put a little context there. So I mean, I think one of the things that I were like, a journalist and for many, many years, and I have a lot of friends who are in this space. And when I first showed people, this idea and started discussing it, socializing it with that group, I got a lot. I think there's a natural skepticism in a lot of those journalistic, classic traditional journalistic circles against anything to do with crypto. And basically people like what crypto No. So we were like, Oh, I guess maybe we should focus more on the crypto communities. And then you find, well, maybe the crypto communities don't have the skill set or the patience to do the kind of work that we're asking them to do. So we've got to be communities that, that should be interested but either hate the tech or hate the task. So that's kind of, we use a little bit of, sort of there just some little bit of noodling on, where are we going to find the peak, where's this going to land and like make they make a big enough splash that we can expect to get a critical mass of users to really fundamentally test our hypotheses. Because until we start doing this, with some kind of more frequency than just been happening, you really don't have a read on what the real pain points are. And whether what you're designing it for the for the right kinds of designing of the right way for how people want to be using it. So that's, that's something we've struggled with is just getting more usage. To me that's, that's, that's, basically we're not, we're not leading with a very inviting, or we just haven't figured out, we haven't got the right, we're not leaning into the user base, we're in the right way, the look of it, the way it operates, everything about it, I feel is putting people off of it. And so we can talk about the theory all day long. But unless the app itself is delightful, and fun and intuitive, like we're just never going to get people to jump in and start using it.

Travis Wyche  
Well, those things are related thoughts,

Speaker 4  
some thoughts about this specifically, you know, ultimately, in any community, there has to be some sort of payout for the person, whether it's reputational, or they feel like they've done some good or you know, it's financial, for example, a couple of a couple of groups, if you take Twitter community notes, people have the scoring system, they feel like they're helping the platform, get rid of, you know, misinformation, and you know, they're boosting their own profile. Those are the payouts there. Another example was a January 6, crowdsource investigators, that all came together. After January 6, there was this whole group of, you know, insurrection, hunters, and they went in, it was a big thing for them to identify the people. You know, it was like a game, you know, they had the chance to identify these people and get them brought to justice. And know, that was sort of like an incentive for them. Right now, with Pac Man, the problem that I think we have the most is that there's not a whole lot of incentive to do anything. Because you know, we don't have the audience. We don't have the big site, we don't have the payout potential. You know, my Next thought was, if we are able to promise an airdrop of tokens that more people might want to start getting involved with it. But I don't know if that incentivizes the wrong thing or not.

Speaker 2  
Yeah, I mean, I think that we are kind of hanging a lot on the token, in terms of number one, I think just creating the correct optics for the community, that's we're gonna wind up using this, if you don't have a real token, people are like, Well, what the hell is this. So we get a lot of, I think we get a lot of credit, if and when we launch a token. Sometimes we do it right. And hopefully, that's reward enough as I think the other stuff is going to come only if it grows, then there'll be something to be like, known as a great fact checker, on fact, land but that's, that's kind of a trailing indicator. Or trailing, instead of is not going to be the thing you'll lead with something like like on Wikipedia, I guess people probably are known as the guy who knows the best who's written the best stuff about Tigers or something.

Travis Wyche  
Can I just ask you a question about what kind of existing community do you have, if at all, in the ICP circles, so you've mentioned you know, a general conversation that you all have had about who to cater to first, eventually everyone, but who to cater to first. And you know, do you have a community built of ICP, a users builders? Or just, you know, I guess influencers or ideologically invested people that have expressed that you have in mind as a potential beginning user base, like a web three native ICP user base

Speaker 4  
with the marketing to them, you know, we've been trying to grow our Twitter account and, you know, between Twitter and LinkedIn, we've got a whole 400 followers. You know, a lot of them, a lot of them are ICP people and when I put up content that relates to ICP or fact land being built on ICP, They all get really involved in the post and will amplify it by means, honestly, for very, very small.

Speaker 3  
And that mostly is just the hope that a useful application will deliver value back to their ICP token, I don't think they're super excited about that, like, the mission of fact land other than apart from that.

---

Travis Wyche  
Right? Yes. Okay. So just to address a couple of things that have come up. Yes, I totally agree. We could talk about the theory all day long. I think in a way, we should not be dismissive of that. I think fact land kind of offers the opportunity to talk about theory all day long. And the ideal user is going to be someone that wants to engage in an unfolding open deliberative process as being synonymous with democracy. And so I wouldn't, you know, it seems to me natural to attach that to the action, we're also trying to encourage within this community. Also, that is, you know, talking about the theory is important for this particular stage. Because the, the theory will inform the design, right, so 100%, I'm on the page, we want it to look great, we want it to be easy to use as frictionless as possible, and for the widest possible usage. But in order to get there, we need to understand how to cater to which audience first, and what their needs are. And you know, just that that really manifests at all layers of the design considerations. Like when when I'm using the word design here at in this conversation, we're really talking about the infrastructural stack and the community governance design and the tokenomics design. But where that will all lead towards is UI decisions about color and typography and information architecture, all the way down into branding. To cater to the kind of attention that we're trying to attract. Let's take for granted it's going to look great, though, we just don't know what kind of great just yet. And, and then the Next thing was Oh, right. So this is a few steps back. But in my personal opinion, it seems to make logical sense to start with a web three native audience first, it seems like there are a lot of problems that are not our problem that we should not set out to solve from wallet and account abstraction to understanding gas fees of the blockchain to just blockchain in general, as an immutable ledger, and how that's different from how web to social media works. There's a lot of stuff that is a problem that the entire ecosystem, even beyond ICP is throwing themselves at and that we don't need to take on as our problem for this build. And I think, as far as who is what our priorities are, which is to build a community of users that will help us battle test this, that's going to be a web three native community, which I think could start with ICP, but ultimately would be very quickly destined for multiple chain kind of interactions. Because there's different communities associated each one because there's different ideologies associated to each one, based on founder gravity and manifestos that have been written. And of course, you guys know all about that kind of stuff, too. So might be interesting to explore that space, pretty extensively. Someone proposed that maybe even starting with raid guild. And you know, RaidGuild is part of a larger kind of multi headed Hydra ecosystem of Moloch Dow meta cartel being the big cultural, like kind of faction, I guess. And then also the DAOhaus community, which is providing, you know, an Open Source SDK to build on top of Moloch Dow contracts is a is a so basically a Dow builder community is a key part of where we're coming from. All of them are super enthusiastic about all of this, and would be very eager to interact with all of it. So I think, a combination of just bringing our communities together, ICP and, you know, it's a theory of mainnet based but there's a lot of experimentation with Arbitrum, optimism and Gnosis Chain. Gnosis Chain also has very Cheap transaction fees and having has, you know, the native token is dye, which is a stable coin. I think that's a good place to start for user base. And those are people immediately at our disposal that we can start asking these kinds of questions to. So for our Next meeting, not, I'm not trying to cut this short or anything, but for our Next meeting, where my head's currently at, is, I want to generate a laundry list of all the things that seem like immediate and obvious UX or UI that I can like test and provide feedback on. So that's a continuation of the comments I gave at the beginning. I think, understanding exactly what we want to be analyzing if I were to do a comparative or competitive analysis, would be really good. And we can get into some of the stuff now if you want to. And then third, would be some initial ideation on who we would suspect these personas to be. And you know, so there's an obvious persona of a user that wants to report information, that may or may not be the same persona of someone that's uploading and downloading that information, that may or may not be the same persona as someone that's curating the content for quality. And that may or may not be the same as a juror, if we decide that that is a must have. You know, the thing about incorporating the DAO governance model is that it really allows anyone to change those hats pretty fluidly. And there's a whole conversation to be had about the permissioning. If there's, for example, private channels, or if they're all rendered public, if there's some people that will be delegated on chain governance, voting powers, or whether that is somehow an earned privilege, like a lot of those things will kind of be addressed later, if we can just convert converge on on what the core use cases of the of the product are. And just to be really clear, I think the output of our second session is going to be a laundry list of all of that work that would really scope it out. The the the output of that would be the writing of that another proposal for the actual execution of the work. And, you know, I do have questions about that. We don't need to get too deep into it now, unless you want to, but I'm generally curious about the timeline. If this goes into, like governance, community design, which sounds really iffy at this point, that would probably be another member coming on board. I do remain a little bit unclear if you guys want me to try to wrangle some cats to think about the tokenomics. Or if you guys feel like you have that covered. And in general, it would be nice to know what your what the intended, you know, I'm still of the mindset that the the actual work would be in the form of UX research, building up to wireframes of a new kind of prototype. I just want to make sure we're on the same page that you're not just hoping for me to just tweak the things like do these little fixes of the thing that you already have. That's totally doable. But it seems like there's this potential for it to be much bigger than that. Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 3  
Do you know Scott Morris, by any chance? Scott, Morris, Morris, he does he does like local currencies and tokenomics design. I just met him at the forum on localism, and was picking his brain about it. I think. I definitely, I think we all want some help on the tokenomics. But maybe I can send you the separate in our mind, like governance, token of like the that would handle like, who's on who are like the paid employees working on like the open source protocol, kind of like a non nonprofit like uniswap labs or, you know, whatever analog there is, versus what sort of participation and voting, if any, do the users were staking and everything get on the platform? I think our assumption is just that the user just kind of, they buy tokens and they use tokens and they trade tokens and that's, you know, no sort of like powers is deemed or is given to those tokens. But like, like we said, we're kind of open, open to like a holistic view of what we're trying to accomplish.

Travis Wyche  
Right? Well, some of that I can approach. Like I mentioned earlier, there's mostly on the level of social cultural governance design. There's another area about public rollout, and partnerships and liquidity in order to bootstrap all of the economic stuff, which there's other organizations in our midst that we could tap on to come on, and they would have their own terms. There's also, of course, the engineering aspect of deploying the smart contracts based on whatever utility that we might deem necessary. So what I'm kind of hoping for. Just to talk out loud here, I think there is at least a possibility, let me say that we could design the token utility to deploy and relatively easy and immediate way without too much custom development, so that it allows the government the government governance, and also community participation to be kind of bootstrapped all in one fell swoop. And that there would basically just be a need for someone probably within raid guilds minutes to come on, and help make sure that we're doing it in a kind of battle tested way. And that we're not opening ourselves up to anything, obviously, vulnerable. And in avoid a lot of like, the need for custom contract work, which will greatly reduce the cost. But that's about all I can really speak to about all that. If you guys like I can try to find someone to join us Next time we meet. Or we can just kind of put a pin in that until phase two.

Speaker 3  
I think, you know, our, the rest of our grant funding for this round is contingent upon us, like, putting out a tokenomics plan to the ICP community and getting, getting feedback and kind of iterating on it. And and so yeah, I think having somebody join us would be great. I was, you know, I was gonna see what, it's got more so I can send us info to thought about it. But yeah, we just really need to pin down the parameters and just simple enough to validate what we're hoping to validate. But also, with the right dynamics, to actually like, see if it if it works or not. So I think if we could do it with just a simple ERC 20 contract or whatever, then that's, that's perfect, but we'll see.

Travis Wyche  
And so that's going to make or break your Next round of funding. So that suddenly sounds like top priority.

Speaker 3  
Yeah, I mean, in a sense, we've, we have enough thoughts of our own and confidence in what, what we have so far too. It's basically just going to the community getting feedback and, and iterating. And coming up with a concrete plan, but not actually, we're not on the hook to actually like launch a token. And so to us, it's like work that we need to do anyway, we'll just document it. And yeah, I'd like to get to the the real plan as soon as possible. But worst case scenario, the, the ICP grant could just be like an experiment that we ended up throwing, throwing away. If it's if it's not sound.

---

Travis Wyche  
Got it. Okay. Well, I see that we have about 15 minutes left, I do have another meeting at the top of the hour. Looks like Julie, or maybe everyone has been putting down a few stickies. There's some things there we could talk about. I mean, at this point, does everyone have any just top of funnel comments, questions or concerns about anything that we've discussed so far today, any way that you want to try to steer me towards a certain emphasis or away from a certain rabbit hole?

Speaker 2  
One thing that you could put at the top of your doc was like the outcome that was supposed to be a very clear articulation of the problem that we're trying to solve. And I'm curious if you might we have health that we need to go back and maybe spend the last 15 minutes just thinking about I mean, the way we've defined the problem is misinformation and labeling that misinformation in scale in a way that avoids the appearance of bias. And is that sufficient in your view? Or is it still? You think we should we should push on what the problem is

Travis Wyche  
that we're trying to solve, or you're asking me?

Speaker 2  
Yep. Is it clear to you what our problem is? I mean, to me, I feel like I've, I have a pretty good idea of the problem that we're trying to solve, but I'm not sure if it if that's just a problem in my own head, and it doesn't translate. Once I articulate that problem to the world. If people follow it and understand it. I think

Travis Wyche  
I'd like, Okay, please say it again. And then I'd like to hear if Keith or Julie would amend it at all.

Speaker 2  
This information labeling at scale, in a manner that avoids the appearance of bias.

Travis Wyche  
So there the problem is that there is an abundance of misinformation. That's what you mean by scale. That the existing? Yeah, social media and like ConsenSys Tech? misinformation?

Speaker 2  
Yeah, I used to work on the curation team at Twitter, and we had 150 people working on this pretty much full time. And we barely put a dent in it. I mean, you need way more than 150 people you need, like 150,000, were one and a half million people working on this problem. So how do you build, retract that scale of participation? And then how do you incentivize it in such a way that it doesn't force you to raise billions of dollars?

Travis Wyche  
Right. So those are kinds of those are moving towards hypotheses. So it seems like a core problem is that there is an abundance of misinformation, there is an incentivization problem for you know, this, this user, this fact checker or whatever, which is also a scale problem you're identifying. And within that there's a latent bias, which is difficult to design out of the validation system, something along those lines?

Speaker 2  
Yeah, I think those, those are all three of the main points. He's Jewish, you guys have any reactions to that formulation?

Speaker 4  
That sounds pretty good. You know, as far as what I'm considering, you know, some of the other notes that I added, added on to the process, because sometimes, sometimes information changes over time. So, you know, I asked a question about, you know, what do you do when things are half true? Or if something changes, and you know, is actually you find out that what you thought was factual? Actually, there was something else going on example of what happened on Twitter notes recently, Don Jr. Put up a picture or you know, some video, and it was immediately tagged as being misinformation. And it turned out that that was, you know, actually true. You know, I have no love for Don Jr. But, you know, it's he got tagged incorrectly, you know, on Twitter, with the community notes. So, you know, my, my, my notes are more towards, you know, those particular cases, not so much the overall if you, you know, which I pretty much agree with how you defined it. Yeah,

Speaker 3  
I think that's a good tactical definition. The only thing that I'm, I'm kind of interested in is just like the, the natural law part of it, like the whatever natural law makes the human brain like, believe something false instantly. And then they have to, like, hear the truth 50 times in order to like, undo, like the asymmetry between misinformation like spreading in anchoring way faster than, than truth that that uphill battle, and that asymmetry needs an asymmetric, organic, alive process that is, like it means a yin to the Yang or whichever one that would be.

Travis Wyche  
Well, that's now jumping into a solution. I think the hypotheses are going to be quite revealing about how we approach this. So my immediate reaction to how you guys are talking about this and again, like this is just feedback but Truth as a referent, it seems like it seems like there's a certain kind of reference, which is a an objective, empirically kind of validated. Dare I say universal kind of truth. There is another usage of the term, which is much more malleable, like wet clay, it's something that is the emergent consensus from a community, which is really more about agreement than Objective verifiability. It remains for me a question how that interfaces with something like opinion, which is absolutely subjective. And a matter of, you know, the time and the space, you know, like, Are you guys familiar with Korzybski, General Semantics? Like he basically is this really, really interesting rabbit hole if you want to google it and read a probably a really substantial Wikipedia page about some interesting, semiotic theory. But basically, it's this notion that an ontological statement, right and tries to push forward something firm, strongly held that this happened. And as soon as such a statement is made, you can immediately refute it and say that you can antagonize the statement, basically. So there's General Semantics is the strategy of changing the way that the statement is made to be contextual and subjective. So rather than stating it as a truth, you would say, in a conditional way, at this time, at this place, under these circumstances, I observed this thing happening. And this is what I observed. And now that immediately turns the conversation into a kind of negotiation and entanglement of perspectives, right, which creates the foundation for dissensus. We don't have you don't have to agree on what I saw, as long as you acknowledge that I saw something. And there's Yeah, well. So there's a variety of strategies that really leave me asking the question of what the ultimate goal of the back end product is, I think the problem statement you guys have defined is a great starting point. But then I would wonder, is the intended result or the hoped for result to provide an objective truth? That can be somehow minted immutably on chain? Or is it to create snapshots of truth as an emergent and constantly evolving organism, depending on that space and time of that community composition? Or is it to provide a kind of, you know, a variation of an echo chamber, which arguably all social media is that allows us to approach the same information in a different way, while alleviating ourselves from needing to refer to it as truth. And maybe it's just a semantic thing, like maybe alleviating that emphasis of that term. And the weight that it carries, might allow us to approach you know, this multiplicity this Pluriverse ality of perspective as maybe the more important goal, you know, like, is it bias? is misinformation, as as a bad thing that we're trying to solve for the problem we're trying to solve for? Is that a result of malicious intent? Bad Faith actors? Is that a problem of just general misunderstanding and confusion? Or is that an issue of just irreconcilable? giftings? of perspective? Is it an existential problem? Sorry, I'm a philosopher. This is where I go, but you know, based on what kind of hypothesis we formulate, will determine how we approach that design space.

Speaker 2  
Yeah, I mean, I think our might lose my, my sort of position on that is that we're much more in a malleable kind of edge of the spectrum. And we want to provide for the fact that new evidence might come to light at any given time that changes what a reasonable person might expect to be considered, well founded, and that that happens more often than people want to admit. And so you want to be able to be year we have this concept of an appeals process, which we haven't built, but the idea if someone disagrees with the decision of the community that you could re litigate it Bringing new evidence, maybe new arguments, new witnesses. And so that the idea that you don't expect truth to be immutable for all time. It's something that we kind of, we make our best guess based on the best evidence available. And it's subject to change anytime.

Travis Wyche  
I like that

Speaker 3  
something that just popped into my head was, like fact as utility like imagining, like the dissensus. You said like in the nuance, I think that the idea would be that that is present on the, on the platform. But I think what we're going for, and what we see is missing is like going through, going through Twitter or whatever news feed, and giving somebody like a useful signal of whether this is something that is credible, that they should pay attention to. And I think, until we come up with a better language around true or fact, I think we'll have to explain later and culturally that like, we're fully aware of the squishiness. And we're not presenting ourselves as an authority, but like, to prevent somebody from needing to get get out of the sorest and look up dissensus and read, read like a 500 word coffee added statement just to get to what is being like, presented as like possibly being true, I think, you know, we want to provide a utility that is like saves people the cognitive load and the time. And we've we've presented and process that they have. They don't have to trust, but they have faith. They have faith in it so, so much that they can just be like, Oh, well, it went through faculty, and I know all the caveats, like this could be overturned tomorrow or whatever. But like, right, it's useful. It's useful just to know what fact land says about this. And now I can I can keep going in my feet or whatever.

Travis Wyche  
So let me just ask you is the problem that you're identifying one, one problem that I am hearing is about like cerebral overload. And it's like an attention retention problem. Anyone that looks at a wall of text, like fact land is attending to the need for like a TLDR, while also empowering the user to make an informed decision.

Speaker 3  
I mean, that's good place to I know, you gotta stop. So maybe we can. Maybe that's a good focal point is just like, Is this useful? For somebody who wants to determine if this is true? Or credibly? True or kind of true or whatever?

Travis Wyche  
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So I'm going to do a little research asynchronously, I'm going to try to show you guys some things. In our chat channel, some with you know, I'll try to provide some TLDR is to save you guys from having to do all the research on what those things are, and just give you some bullets as to why I think they might be interesting to consider. And I think probably another week of asynchronous conversation would allow, plus, I'm going to transcribe this recording into some text that we all have those notes. I'll try to provide an overview of that just to make sure we're all on the same page with what Next steps are. And then when it feels right. We can schedule the kind of second second sprint. Hmm