---
workshop_number: 9
date: 2026-04-22
title: Beyond MVG Workshop -- Voter Incentives and Requirements
video_url: https://youtu.be/7pyAc4P8TBo
youtube_description: |
  In this Beyond MVG workshop session, we reviewed the identified
  recommendations and zoomed into Voter Incentives and Requirements.
attendees:
  - Tevo Kask
  - Roman D
  - Seomon
  - Ian
  - Ken Erik
  - Seon Gbiri
---

# Workshop #9 Transcript -- Voter Incentives and Requirements

Raw YouTube auto-caption transcript with original timestamps preserved.
Stored verbatim for machine reading and future reference. The cleaned,
paragraph-formatted version of this conversation is summarised on the
workshops page card; this file is the source of truth for the spoken content.

## Transcript

0:09
Hey Roman, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you.
0:21
So, how's your day today? Is it early or late in night for you?
0:30
Uh I'm GMT plus minus one from Germany. So I am midday right now.
0:38
Then we are similar plus three.
0:45
Let's see how many people join. It's so random. Like one week we have 10 plus people. Another day last Friday you had
0:53
three people. And now we have you and me
0:58
which is the lowest point yet. All right. There will be at least some team members
1:06
will showing up uh as I'm technically not a facilitator even today.
1:13
Um but let's see maybe there are workshops happening right now or like
1:20
other meetings but Roman have you checked up on beyond
1:28
MVG past workshops or what we do in general how kind of aligned in a sense
1:36
you are with the activities what we're doing here. Uh this is my first time joining in and
1:43
I'm basically in here just to listen in. The topic was interesting so I thought
1:50
I'm going to listen in.
1:55
Okay. Well, I will give you a quick tour guide uh for the application and a bit
2:02
of like background because yeah, I don't know how many people will join later and
2:08
if they need like a full tour, so we may not need to repeat this information.
2:16
So, first of all, um we where is my chat now? He used to kind of collect like
2:23
insights just in like a marboard or meeting documents and like survey. We
2:29
did some surveys through Google form and through that we captured like bunch of
2:34
insights and um observations about the
2:39
governance metrics um and we're like focusing on onchain metrics. So on the challenge page you
2:47
will see um multiple charts on the left side where it's kind of shows you know
2:53
how the voting status breakdown um like basically like hard holder metrics d
2:58
metrics SPO metrics and CC metrics so like the constitutional committee meetings
3:05
um each of these sectors have few like charts you can look into um these were
3:10
like the the most interesting thing that people wanted to show We update the charts over like past few months based
3:17
on the previous insights and now we have gotten into stage where
3:23
we have like summarized all of that um into now
3:30
like uh into challenges. Um so in the right side you will see
3:35
like this um under this metric there's a challenge t voting power is concentrating.
3:42
Or under this percent of D boats that include what's been published rational
3:48
under here there is like three challenges that were brought out.
3:55
Um so yeah that's like the the starting work or like the onchain metric part
4:03
that was done and like these challenges and now in these calls what we have done
4:08
previously we were going through these challenges and making recommendation. So
4:14
and you can see bunch of like we already have around 30 recommendations.
4:20
And if you have any recommendations that is not fitting here, you can click add
4:26
recommendation and then people can write down the recommendation, add any kind of
4:32
related challenges. You can have multiple challenges related to this recommendation that it what the
4:39
recommendation addresses. And this is this is how we kind of
4:44
collect these recommendations. And now in the last workshop for example
4:50
we are now prioritizing it in the prioritize page this use this um uh like
4:56
Reddit style or updown voting basically uh to define should this be
5:03
discussed or not and yeah so far yesterday we took the most voted item
5:08
and have like almost like 40 50 minute discussion just on that one topic to go
5:15
down and we like different guiding questions to to surface like
5:22
how valuable is that recommendation to be implemented and then
5:28
so that's like the workshop what we do in a nutshell and a bit of like um like
5:35
insight into what the team itself is doing. Um where previously we created
5:41
these yeah charts we and and we're working on like governance reports and
5:46
uh also after this stage we are doing right now the next stage is to help to
5:53
draft CIPs or Cardona program statements or like push existing ones further. Um,
6:03
yeah. Okay. All right. I'm clicking through the website uh right now. I
6:08
wasn't aware of this. It's very interesting. I'm going to click through it and then if I have something I try to
6:16
come on these workshops and check this out. Yeah, very interesting. This is very interesting.
6:22
Um well even though we may have smaller audience than last time and the good
6:29
thing that has happened is that over the asynchronous activity there has been more uh votes and they even noticed some
6:38
of the stuff has gotten like comments. So
6:44
that's a great thing. Um let me check if yep the session is recording also. So
6:50
those are watching from the YouTube. Uh so you also know that in the description
6:56
below you will find access to this app and you can provide your comments.
7:02
Then Ian Newa I don't quite remember your name but I I wonder were you here
7:11
before and and you know what this workshop is about
7:16
because if you do I will actually just go ahead and start already discussions
7:22
without giving like too much demonstrations and but if you need context this is could be a perfect place
7:28
to ask. building. Um how do we want to start today? Do we
7:36
want to take few minutes to browse um the prioritization dashboard?
7:43
Um because we are technically at least four of us here. We are essentially able to
7:52
if you already did not vote as you can see I already have voted on some stuff be able to kind of change the order.
7:59
Alternatively, we can just go ahead and take a next item. I did a small update
8:05
just five minutes before the work call started. Good thing is that website didn't crash.
8:11
Um but here is like few design elements. um one is that
8:17
um if we have have the discussion in workshops I created this like small icon and highlighted in different color and
8:25
right now I don't see any there will be also green um like background colors
8:30
appearing for the items when we have multiple assessments by different people
8:36
and few comments on an item to kind of indicate where the activity is happening
8:43
as synchronously so we don't just have like 30 same looking uh items.
8:50
Okay, Salman, you're observing. Ian was probably also observing.
8:56
Roman is new. Um uh and he saw this website first time. So probably you will
9:03
have the most time spent on reading it. But good thing is that you can read also
9:10
after the workshop. So this type doesn't go away. So perhaps um we can open up with some kind of uh like discussion to
9:18
kind of get the experience of what we do in these workshops and for something for
9:23
audience to watch from YouTube. So based on the most votes priority and
9:30
we have already discussed the DEP incentive, I will go to a next item which is remove the requirement to
9:37
select the DREP to withdraw staking rewards. Um and then this will mitigate some
9:45
users simply picking the wallet default which makes wallet d significantly more
9:51
powerful they otherwise would be and it's uh addressing one of the challenges
9:57
called tre v water power is concentrating
10:02
and we have a link to more details usually github has also like a bunch of
10:10
um comments And this one is fairly new actually March
10:15
one. So one month old. Um
10:25
there's a bit of guidance where it should be a person in favor. One person is in favor of that.
10:32
um some kind of ledger related suggestion.
10:40
Yeah, because I assume that script withdrawal patterns
10:47
outdated. Okay. So there was I guess a comment about
10:54
how it the the like requirement works on the ledger side and
11:02
it's have been overturned. I recommend rooming the section as it's not relevant to CIP and will only confuse readers
11:08
wrong thinking that this was ever a concern. Okay. So I'm going to skip that. I said it multiple times
11:16
elsewhere. I don't believe this restriction leads to any increase in participation
11:21
uh and just leads to friction at the wallet level.
11:29
So removing I'm kind of confused uh like I think
11:35
he's arguing that removing this kind of requirement for user to delegate to Derek to get the SPO
11:43
rewards will create friction.
11:50
Um but the argu is hard to kind of implement.
11:56
huge reason why some wallet give a large. Yeah, the URI is one of the uh
12:02
wallets that auto delegates users or give the options to auto delegate.
12:12
Um and yeah, volarus is kind of referencing that it's
12:18
process is is a problem not really the requirement.
12:27
Um agreed on a tip meetings today
12:34
so yeah it's it's interesting and quite like straightforward recommendation.
12:39
It's not as large scope in terms of like will it really affect governance or um
12:47
is that this is like a technical thing that we added removing. Yeah, I I personally don't
12:55
think it has any kind of impact uh like large impact
13:01
because essentially what happens is then most of the people who want SP rewards
13:06
and kind of do this motion they will simply not
13:12
delegate to the rep and
13:17
yeah I guess that's it
13:22
and is that a good thing? I don't know. I would actually argue that if you don't care about governance,
13:29
then maybe I don't participate. But would that be an auto abstain then or is there like a fourth category
13:37
or as or does that mean? Yeah. So it does put a sense of where the default
13:42
value is then going to reside.
13:48
Um any thoughts on the room on this particular
13:53
uh recommendation like in general
14:01
and Seomon you're writing that if they write ration and vote like deals I don't
14:07
see why they shouldn't get the rewards. Uh I think the people who we are talking
14:15
rewards about is the SPOS's are getting
14:20
rewarded. Uh or like they won't get rewarded if they
14:26
don't delegate to the
14:31
well if no initial does then I'm going to share uh what do we have as like assessment. So each of these
14:38
requirements have this assess submission. So if you're in first there's a button how does scoring work
14:44
which kind of explains this score on the right side by default it's somewhere
14:50
around 40 I think let's see there are below average assessment
14:57
okay here is one without any assessment so basically a TU score is 54
15:04
um and the 100 score is basically if all
15:09
the benefits are at maximum imum and all the costs um are like minimum.
15:15
So now back to here um then we have also
15:20
movers basically it's like must should won't. So we have ability to choose
15:26
which category at a high level this recommendation should fall into and then
15:32
we have the scoring dimensions that go in detail like how significant it is how time sensitive it is how many people
15:38
want to address and then we have the cost dimensions where is like legal risk or maint maintainability. So if we
15:44
address all of these areas, answer all of these questions, we should be able to get quite a nice holistic view of where
15:52
this recommendation is sitting and how how like required it is right now, what
15:58
could be the priority for this. So when I press the assess button, it will open up me this uh options to move
16:07
stuff around. uh already have myself like every person
16:13
who does that they will create like their own scoring and the average score
16:19
will be used as the the final score. Um but the first question is how many
16:26
people or processes are affected by this mechanism?
16:34
Roman let's start with you and I'm gonna go round table and so what's your thought on that is when
16:42
there's like one to 10 uh is it how many people this recommendation will affect
16:50
is it few people or entire ecosystem
16:58
I have no thoughts on that sorry I can't help with this I am still following
17:05
Okay. But yeah, how about you?
17:10
Do you have any um your thoughts on how many people are or
17:16
processes are affected by this recommendation to remove the requirement to select the data
17:23
to withdraw staking rewards?
17:32
Okay. So feels like today I'm the one who's going to talk and three of us here in the call will all observe.
17:39
Yeah. Yeah. Which is I can't do that. Um and then I guess the best you can do to is arguing
17:46
against me or object me if I'm going to offs with my thoughts and are seeing
17:52
some kind of dead end. So basically in here how many people or processes are
17:57
affected? I would say the entire ecosystem just like the first thing
18:03
like because that's baked into protocol so everybody will feel that already or not
18:11
feel that if we kind of remove it then they kind of don't feel it but in a sense I think this is has a huge impact
18:18
but now there is like um impact in a sense is like impactful impact so there
18:28
May maybe a hard kind of consideration here but in terms of just how many
18:33
people it and processes affects I would put 10.
18:38
Then is there a deadline or time pressure? I think yeah it's very
18:47
I could even say can wait indefinitely because it's something that uh
18:54
at least it personally doesn't bother me but it may bother somebody. So here's a yeah opportunities for others to kind of
19:00
increase the value.
19:07
Okay. Hello Ken and Sibiri.
19:14
We are in a unique composition of people in this call today. Um Seomon and Roman
19:22
will are mainly observing tonight. Um probably have some and Ian too is going
19:29
in and out maybe connection issues. Um Roman is a bit new to this be on deg
19:36
process. So is browsing around also around the like metrics and charts. So
19:42
what we have decided for now is that I'm going to go through the top rated um
19:48
prioritization and basically have a monologue
19:53
to to how I think and people can kind of comment and uh stop me where if I go if
20:00
my thinking is too far.
20:07
and Seomon. Okay. Um but going forward, can this be put
20:16
with existing tools? Our top like topic today is remove the requirements to select a tier to withdraw staking
20:23
rewards. Uh can this be put with existing tools?
20:28
I would say yes. I mean I think it's more about removal.
20:34
So it feel like it's even low effort considering it's you just need to make
20:40
sure you don't take break any dependencies but I don't know
20:46
feels like an easy thing to do what resources would be needed I think
20:53
again very limited costs maybe talk to Brian or somebody who has access to this
21:01
um ledger Well, technically everybody has access to that. So maybe even just asking claw,
21:07
hey, can you remove it? Create a pull request might be even like an
21:12
a solution here aligns with Cardano road map and priorities.
21:20
Okay, this is hard one um because
21:26
either way it doesn't really affect the road map. So I'm going to skip that.
21:34
It's like a very technical recommendation. Um even
21:40
yeah it it is addressing the challenge of deal voting power is concentrating
21:47
but I I don't know if it this is like a solution here.
21:54
It makes probably only affect the the very specific wallet providers
22:02
or the platform providers.
22:08
Yeah. To to have less people who don't care about governance to vote for them or like to delegate to them.
22:15
So it but it doesn't stop concentrating. It just reduces the amount of people who
22:20
participate. um alliance with corona road map priorities that's how quickly can
22:28
benefits be realized
22:34
yeah question is what are the benefits
22:39
so maybe there is some kind of like benefit
22:46
that we can get realized I guess I'm just going to keep it in
22:53
Because that's a measurable thing especially now as we have this feature
22:58
and then we turn it off if if we would turn it off we will definitely see kind of onchain effect on this and probably
23:07
already in like few months um but yeah is it like beneficial that
23:14
we don't really know but I'm trying to value in a sense so like the outcome should be quite
23:22
How much uncertainty is in this approach? I will say highly uncertain.
23:30
Uh well, it depends again where do we look at like for me it's highly uncertain
23:37
because I don't know it does because it doesn't really solve the problem of
23:43
concentration. It does a pretty particular thing here.
23:51
Um but like as a technical risk part of it,
23:57
yeah, I think it's like low risk to remove.
24:02
Yeah, this is a probably a very low risk uh because before it wasn't necessarily
24:10
so for the hard fork basically doing a reverse.
24:19
I'm going to lower it to four then regular compliance considerations. I
24:27
think non ongoing effort needed to maintain uh maintainability is also set and
24:35
forget but maybe I want to come back and reintroduce that but it's still kind of
24:41
a forget part. Um, so after hearing my monologue going
24:48
through all of these assessments, does anybody have want to have some final comments on the way I was thinking and
24:58
assessing that requirement?
25:07
Yeah. Um uh I think it's um in regards to uh
25:16
Europe uh concentration um we seen like a lot of the concentration might happen
25:23
due to actually uh yeah the the default wall setting that you guys um which we have
25:29
identified it have been happen over quite some time um
25:36
I'm not sure if that it will uh have like an immediately effect
25:43
but um perhaps in the long term it will be cuz you you you you cannot un
25:50
delegate what's have been delegated to you as long as it's active.
25:57
Mhm. Okay. And now I'm going to also show the
26:03
new feature. Admins can now say that this is discussed in workshop.
26:09
Okay, it doesn't automatically update it. But if I refresh, what happens here?
26:14
It gets this icon that we have discussed it.
26:20
We have 30 minutes to go. I have no plans other than being in this call. So
26:26
let's just pick up another one and go to that
26:32
volter incentivize Walter incentives applied R&D work
26:38
streams applied re okay
26:44
did I really did I really now lose the expand button
26:50
I think I did weird this is not good that I then I cannot show you the full
26:56
info here. Is this the one from Mark?
27:02
Yeah. Okay. So, there is a a thing that I introduced. So, we cannot fully expand
27:08
the recommendation and that prior to the speech. Anyway, applied rear and development were extreme focused on
27:15
incentive models to encourage delegators to be more active redelegating their
27:20
voting power more frequently according to DREP's performance is in order to
27:25
break delegation stickiness. I conducted research and develop a model
27:32
that will solve the problem. Uh okay. And then how can we increase meaningful
27:38
participation? Uh there are different ways to design governance incentive and it's important to disc distinguish them
27:44
clearly from the start. At high level incentive mechanis can be divided in two broad
27:51
categories. Positive incentives which about behavior and negative
27:56
incentives and to reduce benefits are friction etc. Both approaches aim to
28:02
influence participation but they do the it very different ways.
28:08
Um and then it describes in governance this could mean offering
28:15
some additional benefits and negative incentives. In governance,
28:20
this can make forms of forms such as forcing users to take periodic actions to preserve access to rewards
28:28
and then it provides link to additional information
28:37
one and it's an article how can we increase meaningful participation addressing t delegation stickiness
28:45
and barriers to entry goes quite in a length.
28:52
Um so the simple terms the answer is this meaningful participation in governance
28:58
can be increased by recognizing that incentives be designed either as rewards or as disentives either inside or
29:05
outside protocol. The article suggests that the current governance problem is driven by
29:10
concentration inertia and weak re-engagement. From the starting point, it points
29:16
toward the need or a mechanism that make delegation more dynamic.
29:21
Lower the practical barriers facing small D reps improve accountability. It's also and then we have another
29:29
additional information here.
29:37
uh distributing direct influence with delegator incentives
29:43
approaches to improve delegation inension and the represention quality
29:55
as a result proposals typically fall into three part interventions delegator
30:00
site mechanism reward expansion generalized delegation rewards Increased
30:08
donations, reallocating value, creating new recurring obligation,
30:13
access fiction, conditioning, staking rewards, DEP side incentives and
30:19
compensation, saturation caps and d effective opting.
30:24
So it here has a lot of like context
30:29
about incentivization ideas or at least requirements or having
30:36
that overall idea how to do incentives.
30:44
um pressure based delegation and I guess
30:51
there is also multiple recommendations here. So coming back to the
31:01
item itself essentially what it is proposing
31:08
is applying
31:14
voting power more frequently. So based on title, it feels like there
31:19
needs to be teams who work with incentives and these articles kind of
31:26
help to understand what goes into drafting incentives and
31:32
disincentives. Um
31:38
and then there was a lot of lot of text to read there that like but
31:43
on a high level uh it's looking at like a K parameter if I
31:50
understand it correctly for DREPS uh they're talking about compensation
31:59
and saturation caps. Yeah. On their voting power.
32:06
Yeah. So this would be a little harder to assess recommendation I feel like
32:11
because it's bundle of recommendations. Yeah, they are.
32:17
Um but regardless
32:22
um yeah like incentivizing governance or like activity where people
32:30
are experts or Yeah. like like the
32:35
community comes together, understands an issue and starts to come
32:41
up with like models to experiment with. I think that's the only way we can like get a healthy governance.
32:48
Um so instead of having like one or two entities to detect what is the
32:54
experiment and what we're going to experiment with. Um
33:00
and and it's it's a I just read that article here. Now I also see um the uh
33:08
here is called a bonus pool. Uh but I also know that other uh in the community
33:14
have been debating you know doing a treasury draw and fully saturate uh
33:21
um stake pool and have that uh for
33:27
distributing uh uh rewards.
33:39
So yeah, I think I saw somewhere
33:45
a recommendation about that exact thing that we made the stake pool and fully
33:51
saturated and used that to reward. Oh, maybe that was the
33:58
last workshop comments where we
34:03
touched. And it's um the first place I spotted it was um Yuda
34:10
uh who suggested this. It was an expost.
34:23
So you have a but he didn't talk about K parameter or like capping the voting
34:28
power but um um from what I can read at least from
34:34
this uh this uh voter incentivize um is that uh
34:42
they they are going for uh saturating a pool bonus
34:48
pool as I call it and also tapping uh the rep holding power.
34:57
But here in that thing what you're describing is these rewards then go to the voter or to
35:06
the dre doing the voting. It's for a dre.
35:12
Okay. because I'm what now I just realized that both of this applied R&D
35:18
ver teams are done by Rosito and the first one that we discussed last
35:24
time uh applied R&D t- incentives was also done so I think he opted into two
35:32
different buckets one is where it focuses on d incentives and another one
35:38
which is we're looking right now is looking at voter incentives But yeah, in both cases you can reward
35:45
uh the users with the
35:51
state for rewards or like have some kind of mechanics for that. Um okay at high level I would say yes
35:59
this is a must. We do need both something like incentives and disentive
36:05
like better gamification method that is more interactive and feels more healthy
36:11
conversation for both Walter and D. I'm going to put it as a must and as an impact I put it
36:18
nine um instead of 10 because it's still
36:25
yeah it won't affect I think everybody I'm assume those companies who just want
36:32
to use protocol for specific things store data or get verifications
36:37
or or or yeah maybe even aid to those who are just storing as
36:44
uh like an age against risk asset or and just like distribute their portfolio for
36:51
those that doesn't matter what do we do here but yeah I will put in
37:04
doing a lot there is even calculation here and um
37:09
and having circuit breaker for the jackpot epo box and
37:16
and boost crashers. This is a
37:22
this is a you have to take notes when you read this one.
37:28
Yeah. Okay. See the bonus tool here.
37:36
Yeah. This is a lot to read. Um, but we do have Se and Ken, so I
37:44
don't actually have to do a monologue now anymore. Next question. Is there a deadline or a
37:50
time pressure for this? Any thoughts from Se Gibiri? How urgent or
37:56
non-injured you feel like this recommendation is?
38:03
Yeah. Um I think it's quite um urgent and it currently aligns with um the the
38:11
absolute must basically because I'm reading because I've not taken a look at
38:16
um I'm just trying to understand um a lot of things right now but looking at it the incentives and the
38:22
disincentives are actually very important and um
38:28
yeah the saturation cap looks like I think is the better approach because
38:33
Love it is um um directly from the treasury and so yeah it's a must for me
38:41
a must then for can this be built with existing
38:49
tools? Um so the pool park uh can be used by
38:57
existing as far as I know but it is the distribution mechanism here that um
39:07
um uh that is um a little bit tricky. Uh it needs a hard fork and the reason for
39:15
that is that the ledger there are these two parts.
39:21
um the ledger doesn't the ledger doesn't see
39:26
a dre certificate. So like currently you cannot for example make logic with smart
39:32
contract and stuff like that utilizing the dre certificate. Um
39:38
but uh I know at least from what I have been
39:44
uh catching up on that that is something actually
39:50
um it's actually been looked into uh and it has nothing to do with the rep u
39:58
compensation or incentivize uh to do um
40:03
so we would say feasibility is eight out of 10 but it has technical risk of five
40:09
because yeah it is a technical barrier that we reach
40:14
I would assume then the cost estimate will also go a bit I don't know as same
40:20
as visibility then if it's required hardwork and ledger stuff then it's IoG
40:26
is going to ask a few millions for that right sometimes it's like a good question
40:31
should they pay millions to those who are in control of protocol or use these millions to incentivize the
40:38
people to actually do the work already because there was yeah in the um in the
40:44
chat when people yeah basically sharing that we we have the tools like as as
40:52
they are they already work the problem is just people don't collaborate we
40:57
don't look at the values we want to do and and the the human layer is much harder to achieve it's not about is the
41:04
proposal is going up or not. If we can put any proposal up there and like anybody can budget the cost into there,
41:11
but the human layer of getting people like into agreement and knowing that
41:17
this is the is where we're going with this blockchain, this is the hard part and it's not a
41:23
technical issue. Anyway, aligns with Cardona road map priorities. I think it does because it
41:31
we we are trying to give like especially with this you we are like decentralizing
41:37
power. Um in case somebody wants to get through my door.
41:43
So Ben you are in in charge. We have three more questions and then when I
41:49
come back you tell me what the numbers are.
41:55
Yeah. Let's see if we can uh
42:04
um I'm still trying to um
42:15
see if I can get the same view as a table there.
42:23
You can't because it's my instance. The the question is how quickly can benefits be realized
42:30
and regulatory compliance considerations uh ongoing effort needed. These are
42:37
three. Yeah. Well uh when it comes to
42:46
ongoing efforts need for maintenance. So
42:51
that is uh as everything that we put on uh when we do some changes it probably
42:57
need update optimalization and I see
43:03
optimalization um so there is maintenance there
43:08
rail compliance consideration no
43:15
I don't I don't see see any uh issues there.
43:22
Technical risk. Um
43:28
probably uh yes have put it up there. Uh and how quick it can be realized.
43:39
Um
43:44
they have been debated but um need to
43:51
uh the development for this uh is a long process. So we are talking about two
43:56
maybe even three years. Then on top of that this needs to be prioritized along
44:02
with other stuff like updates
44:08
and stuff like that. Oh forgot to mute himself.
44:19
Right. You forgot you forgot to mute yourself.
44:24
But now you have muted yourself. So similar like yesterday. It's a long
44:31
road to implement uh such feature um because uh you need to update the
44:37
ledger. uh reg regulatory consideration that is absolute very low and then uh
44:43
maintenance like medium I will say because every time you do update you have to
44:51
look at previous changes I think it's even five because this is
44:59
voter incentives applied work stream so it's consistent research and development
45:05
and even if you implement that you would probably need another round to re-evaluate how it's working right now
45:12
and what do we need more and the more we do it the probably the more active people get to coming up with new
45:18
experiments so I think that's has high cost needs to be tweaked
45:27
okay cool we now have one two assessments for this but both are must
45:34
score I think that's the highest score and let's do this. And now it appeared
45:44
what what this um show more button was not visible
45:50
before. I don't know. I actually I cannot open let's say get
45:56
the same view that you have. But um everybody has their own assessment
46:02
scores. Yeah. So that's why you can't see the exact same scoring.
46:08
Well, I I cannot get it up assessment score at all. That was u
46:15
interesting. What happens if you click on the prioritization item then?
46:21
Hold on. I just share my screen here.
46:27
Um
46:33
There we go. Okay. And your issue is
46:41
Well, uh, now I found the I didn't find that button. Oh, okay. Okay.
46:48
Well, we have looks like an average 20 minutes goes
46:55
for an item. Um so let's roll back on
47:00
Roman and Son. Um yeah, how you think so far the
47:07
platform works? What the discussion is going? Do you feel the recommendations are
47:13
like great here that are done? Do you think there are something missing? What's your kind of initial thoughts on
47:19
the first workshop you joined in aside from overwhelming amount of information?
47:25
Uh yes this is the first point a big amount of information and um for
47:33
now I have to yeah read in what all the recommendations are about try to
47:39
understand them and then get into discussion but yeah as as said there are
47:46
just many informations to take in when you first visit the website
47:52
is for my Can I can it somehow make it easier for
47:59
users? Should I make like top three or like not instead of throwing all the data at once like are there any
48:07
expectations for you to see different overviews or like a top selections or
48:13
you think this is fine and it just takes time to consume? Uh I think there had to
48:20
be something like the ribbons. There are ribbons but they have to be more
48:26
specific for the topic maybe or uh I mean I I read a strong
48:31
recommendation is to support the place research da da da for the applied R&D dep incentives and I uh I yeah have
48:41
more to read into it until I understand what's everything is about.
48:48
Yeah I think has to develop over time.
48:54
Okay. Anyway, welcome to governance Roman. Uh we all start somewhere and I'm glad to
48:59
have you here. It's a it's a steep learning curve, but
49:05
uh everybody gets there eventually. And soon,
49:10
how about you? How do you feel today's about today's workshop and at the platform in general? Maybe it's a good
49:17
time to give feedback so that the next one that's happening on Friday will be even better.
49:23
Yeah. Um like um I share almost the same sentiment as Roman. Um but I prefer to
49:30
like um like take everything in because I'm not um new to governance per say in
49:35
the web space. I've done governance before but I'm new to governance on on
49:41
Cardano. So like I'm trying to like take in all the all the information to be
49:47
able to interpret it and like um yeah that's basically my sentiment. I feel
49:52
this is like going great. I like the beyond MVB platform like I I'm on it right now and I'm trying to look through
50:00
everything and everything seems like fine. So I'll just take my time to read through it, understand it and be better
50:07
informed ahead of the Friday um workshop.
50:15
Okay. Uh something uh just come to me for an optimization.
50:21
Maybe in such recommendations it would be uh interesting to have the now state
50:29
of the governance issue and then uh the recommendation on itself. What
50:37
could it change? Like which metric could it change? Like like I had to think about poly
50:44
market where you have different different outcomes and you can kind of
50:50
see what could change if I vote this or otherwise
50:56
kind of situations. This just something that came to me right now.
51:02
Yeah. I wonder how it would be best implemented. Well, at the easiest I
51:07
guess I could say just a user tells me what's the current state is but on the other hand the challenges
51:14
that we have crafted for the for this workshop X series they are kind of the
51:21
current set state where which for example I opened up remove the requirement to select TE and the user
51:28
has applied supporting evidence that is TE voting power is unconentrating so
51:33
that kind the current state and if you yeah maybe it's not that maybe it's a
51:40
good if I share screen again and it's like a small features hidden all over
51:46
the place so when you open up a nice challenge and you see this supporting evidence every place where you see this
51:53
M21 this is actually the chart name so you can open up and that is the the
51:59
affected um yeah uh like magic although yeah
52:06
yeah I mean like to explain what magic because a recommendation would be there
52:14
and some kinds of uh related graph would appear there and then it said if we vote
52:20
for this the outcome could be this like vis for visual visualization
52:28
to get more into the topic and what the recommendation is
52:35
Okay, what I'm going to do is show you also a bit of feature on the right side panel. There are three options. One is
52:42
of course the support feedback and AI assistant. Uh worth to try it out. It's not perfect
52:48
but um every feedback you gave give through the agent itself for example who
52:55
is in beyond maybe GT I don't know if it answers it correctly and I understand that but what I'm trying to show is that
53:03
it has this rate response option and if you rate that whatever you submit then
53:10
we will see the result and yeah I can optimize the AI to give better answers
53:17
And also we then know what people are actually asking and are interested. All right. All right. I see. I see. All
53:22
right. Right now it doesn't really tell who it is. We know that Fanny is part of team.
53:29
We know that Kenny. So it's Yeah, he's like doing a guessing game, but he's not really quite sure who is in team.
53:36
He does not know about me. Uh and it leads to a link.
53:41
What was the what was the queries? I asked who is in Beyond MVG team.
53:47
Oh, and it says it's not detailed although it's quite detailed. It's in the [ __ ] front page of the
53:56
uh yeah with 1% accuracy just to look at the what is that? Yeah, just looking at
54:04
the interview notes. Uh okay, so technically this was like a
54:09
kind of bad not really trustful. Uh, so I'm going to see we can now next time when I look up
54:18
the improvements to do for the website, I know that I can
54:24
and fine-tune the documentation that has information about
54:30
the team itself and make sure it kind of recognizes that. So that's one feature. Another what you mentioned was add an ability to add
54:41
future state or recommendation aka what happens if this gets accepted.
54:52
Uh yeah I just this is enough and then again same thing feedback will be
54:58
registered and I will be able to pick it up when I'm doing development.
55:05
Well this AI explains a lot uh of the DMs I have got.
55:18
Okay. Well, all righty. Well, with that, I think
55:25
today we are done. We got two workshops or like two discussions
55:32
covered a bit of that. Um everybody is welcome to ask synchronously
55:39
to add comments, add assessments and the next time we meet we go again I guess from the top
55:47
votes and yeah see we then
55:53
and everybody who does able to consume all the content if it's too much to like
56:00
do it manually now as there are so many recommendations on top here you have the data button and you can export yourself
56:08
some data if you just want to feed it to your agent and kind of talk it this way
56:15
because my agent our agent may not be that great for that but you may have fine tune stuff.
56:22
Okay, thanks for joining again and see you on another and thank you for Byebye
56:31
and thank you for listening. Bye.