It's on. Okay. It's all on. Everything is on. We'll see. We'll find out when you publish it.
Should we walk up the nice thing there, do one ring, like go really fancy?
Yeah, let's do that. And then we'll just, wherever the kind of sound landscape takes us.
Because you'll have to understand one thing, once you snap the mics on,
sound will just magically appear and things will just get noisy. People with
leaf blowers will start hunting you. It's probably like a bias. It's always noisy.
Yeah. I mean, you focus, you don't, you usually don't focus on these things.
John Vervanke would say your whole salience landscape changes once you start
recording. That's what he would say. So suddenly you focus on, you know, everything
is noise. If you're in the sauna and it gets really hot, everything that, you know,
it's water might cold water might be appealing. Like if you're really thirsty,
everything suddenly becomes a way to get water and so on. Anyway.
Jeez, how have you been? Very good. All right. And there's the noise. See, I told you, I told you.
Suddenly there's motorbikes, everything. It's been a while. It's been a very long time. I think the last time we talked really was in Madeira.
Yeah. Yeah. Actually, that's the last time I saw you. Yeah. Yeah. You were one of the early ones. One of our guinea pigs.
Yeah. Basically. Yeah. When we didn't really know what we were doing. Yeah. But not that we like improved a lot, but you know, it's a little bit better.
What's different now? We try to keep the things that work. We added some new things.
There's a little bit more structure, a little bit more kind of rules. Vibe coding changed a lot of things. Now that we have vibe coding, one of the new rules is you have to demo something new every week.
So it has to be a new idea. You can still show whatever, like other stuff, but at least one new thing you have to show every week. So there's a bunch of live coding change. A lot of things.
Yeah. No, no slides. That's an important one. That's a good rule. Demo day is only demos. We say this over and over and over again. And if you show one single slide during a demo day, you'll just be shot.
We have like an AK 47 handy and you'll just be executed on the spot. No, we're very serious about it. It's like, you'll be, you'll be booed out of the building. It's like, there's no, it just doesn't fly. Now you can come up with like a working demo should take you like 10 seconds to build basically.
Yeah. That makes a lot of sense with, with, uh, with the speed that you can build now. Yeah. Um, and also there, it doesn't matter if you build slop.
No, it's the whole point is it's a proof of concept demo. Does this make sense? Is the idea good? And so on. And speaking of, does this make sense?
That's what I want to talk to you about businesses without state involvement. Does it make sense?
You've been in the business of building Nostra Rocket? Yes. For a long time. Yeah. And you told me you're still thinking about it, still excited about it and still working on it and want to get back into it.
So why don't you get me up to speed and kind of sketch out where you are, maybe how you're thinking has evolved. What works now? What do you still want to build out? I'll shut up. You just go.
So, well, the core problem is that we don't have Bitcoin. If you look at it like a nation state, it doesn't have any exports. We're a hundred percent dependent on imports for all of our products and services.
With very few exceptions. If you're into soap and leather. There are edge cases. There are edge cases. But generally speaking, a leather mint wallet and a bar of soap.
Yeah. There are edge cases. No matter. No matter. You could, you could probably like make a trade like bottle caps for these things as well. Right. Yeah. There are edge cases. But, um, what about merchant adoption, uh, in places like Madeira or Bitcoin jungle? Would you count that or no? Are they keeping the Bitcoin or are they just most of them are because it's less than 1%. That's good.
Up there. Um, I mean, it's a start, but, but that's not really the, like, what's the source of economic power or, or, um,
You mean globally speaking?
Abstractly speaking. So right now printing money.
Okay. That's the wrong way. That's the, that's the, that's the, that's, that wasn't the answer I was looking for.
Okay. Okay.
I'm trying to kind of give your, give your, give your own answer.
Uh, ultimately, I think it's ultimately comes down to energy. That's the source of everything, right?
Oh, Michael Saylor would love that.
Well, are you saying that Bitcoin is digital energy?
Now we're cooking.
I'm not saying Bitcoin is digital energy.
Now all of Bitcoin Twitter is suddenly listening.
And it's, and it's definitely not. Yeah.
No, now we need to talk about price if we want all of them to listen.
Yeah. Yeah.
Are you reinventing scratch?
Are we going to get 12% instead of 11?
Sorry, I'm derailing you completely.
So energy is important.
Cause then energy is what enables everything else to happen.
Right.
Yeah.
And, um, but I mean, we don't have to go, it's probably see if the, the, the ideal situation
would be, uh, we just collaboratively build, um, highly efficient energy production infrastructure.
But how come you're already on energy?
If I understand you correctly, what do you want to have is a proper, um, a proper parallel
economy.
Yes.
A proper Bitcoin only parallel in the best case circular economy.
Yeah.
But the first step to doing that is understanding what the economy is.
Okay.
And I think that it's the source of the economy is energy.
Cause everything depends on energy.
Is that the, the, the, uh, close to the theory of labor fallacy?
Possibly.
You can, you can waste a lot of energy building a mud pie, right?
Yeah.
Kind of thing.
Yeah.
But you also need energy to do it.
But okay.
Let's, let's, let's, let's get into it.
All right.
Economy.
What do you have inputs and outputs, right?
Some transformation in the middle, the transformation.
I think one of the, I would agree that one of the knobs you can turn in the transformation
is energy.
Yeah.
It's also ingenuity and other things.
Um, but in the end, I mean, uh, like Saifedeen would probably object to your, your, the thesis
you laid out that the, it, it doesn't matter how you come to the product.
The, the only measurement that is interesting is if people want to buy it.
It doesn't matter how much energy you.
No, no, no.
I totally agree with that.
I'm just saying, I'm saying the.
It's actually go up.
That's what I wanted to do.
Oh yeah.
That's why we're here.
We're already, we are like, not only derailed, we also walked the wrong way.
So we're off to a fantastic start.
I'm not saying.
Derailed the conversation and the path.
Yeah.
I'm not saying energy is, I still don't, I still don't understand it.
So the reason I mentioned energy is simply because that's one of it's required, but not sufficient.
Right.
Okay.
To, for, to produce goods and services.
Yeah.
So, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily produce energy and sell it for Bitcoin.
Although that would probably be a cool idea.
Um, and pretty powerful, but we do need to produce goods and services, uh, as Bitcoiners.
I mean, in the Bitcoin economy, you could argue that, um, the most Bitcoiners are selling hash power to the Bitcoin network.
No?
Yeah.
That's okay.
I mean, you're getting a stroke right now.
Is it because all the big miners are public companies and just mining for fiat?
That's still, that's still, anytime you want to actually use the Bitcoin that they've mined to buy something from the economy though, you're creating demand for fiat because everything else is produced in the fiat system, in a fiat economy.
Okay.
And they want that trade to be settled in fiat.
Okay.
Yeah.
So if a shop, if a shop accepts big, accepts Bitcoin as payment, it's fine.
It's cool.
But the actual trade down the line is settled in fiat still.
Yeah.
At some point.
Even if the shop keeps the Bitcoin.
It's just to play devil's advocate.
The, the, the, what you're talking about, what do you want to see is more of the things I mentioned before, like soap miner, like leather mint, like I can't ever pronounce it as a bellow art.
Yeah.
Where, um, it's the nominated and stats only accept Bitcoin and the people make these things to earn Bitcoin.
Yeah.
For no other reason.
Yeah.
They only accept Bitcoin and they hold the Bitcoin.
And so you want to, you want to make more of those people.
Yeah.
Okay.
And a Bitcoin standard means that you can't buy anything without Bitcoin.
Yeah.
Fair enough.
Just like you go to the, yes, you can't buy anything without dollars.
Yeah.
Um, so like, because, because we need to buy things from the fiat economy, uh, and it creates a demand for fiat.
Every time we buy something, if we're playing in Bitcoin, um, that's like, that's an off ramp, right?
You have to off ramp from Bitcoin into fiat.
Yeah, sure.
It's a, it's a complicated chicken and egg thing because not all, not all resellers, not all resellers.
That's not the right.
Right.
Um, the merchants you work with don't accept Bitcoin.
Even if you yourself, even if they, even if they accept it, someone, their suppliers don't.
Yeah.
Suppliers.
That's the word I was looking for.
Uh, let's see what's over here.
Um, and what that means is we are dependent on these imports from the fiat economy and we
are dependent on off ramps, which they can shut down.
All right.
So let, let, allow me to make an analogy in terms of new world, old world, you're colonizing
the new world and you're still dependent on ships from great Britain.
Yeah.
That's what you're trying to say.
Yeah.
Right.
In some sense.
Yeah.
And you don't, you want to remove the dependence in some way.
So what, what, like, we will have to eventually get into Nostrojet and what it is and what,
why do we need businesses outside of the current structures to make all that work?
Like close that loop for me.
Uh, I think I understand the energy piece now.
Okay.
So, well, the, the simple explanation is that, uh, when you operate as a business registered
with the state, they regulate you and that eliminates you from the Bitcoin economy.
It's regulation always bad.
Not necessarily, but the, it doesn't matter.
They, they, they hold all of the cards.
So if they say you can't use Bitcoin, you can't use Bitcoin.
If they say you can't spend Bitcoin in certain ways, then you can't spend Bitcoin in certain
ways.
Oh, okay.
So that's a US centric argument in the capital gains sense and all those kinds of things.
Oh, no, no, not only that.
Just, I just mean you're regulated by the state, which means actually you're a branch of the
state.
So you, because you agree to play by the rules and operate under these rules.
Yeah.
And then those rules are determined by the state.
So, so the only way to be independent is to become a pirate and go hit the open seas.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
I just want to bring a little bit of, you know, sovereign engineering, sovereign engineering
theming into it.
We talk about, you know, the wide open sea that's built out by cryptography, basically.
That is to be explored.
Yeah.
Let's do that.
So the other, to continue your analogy of the new world being dependent on ships from Britain.
We want to flip it the other way around, right?
That world should be dependent on us.
Yeah.
The US managed it after a while and then they flipped to China.
Yeah.
So, which is just another fiat system.
So how does NosRocket play into that picture?
What's your grand vision of, of minting more leather mints and minting more soap miners
and all those types of people?
How, what, what, what would, how would make NosRocket their life easier for those business
owners that only want to accept Bitcoin?
I think those business owners, cause they're all individuals, right?
So NosRocket won't help them.
Okay.
Um, maybe explain what it is.
Uh, NosRocket in the current iteration, uh, so Bitcoin is proof of work, which is directly
using energy, forcing it through SHA-256.
Um, yeah.
Difficulty adjusted proof of work.
Yeah.
Important.
Yeah.
But the, but it's, but the energy is forced through a process that channels it into solving
SHA-256.
Yeah.
And everything outside of that is not part of the, is not, um, is not part of the, there's
like heat and stuff that comes off as well as a byproduct, but that's not what we're doing.
We're, we're doing SHA-256, right?
That's the end, end product.
Um, so.
You want to increase the range of products if I hear you correctly.
Yes.
Well, I know, but okay.
So I want to funnel, so it, it, it fun, that funnels energy into SHA-256.
I want to funnel energy, human energy into, into something that directs towards producing
something that other people want.
Okay.
Into the Bitcoin only economy, basically.
Yeah.
All right.
Okay.
Um, and so the, the simplest way I can think of to do that is, um, everyone who contributes
to something that produces revenue, their contributions become equity in the, in the project.
Oh, I see.
Okay.
And all revenue goes directly to anyone who has equity, right?
Yeah.
There's no.
All right.
So now we're talking about kind of, um, how do you organize groups of people to get something
done and how do you compensate them accordingly and how do you build up these kinds of venture
business structures like the East Indian trade company?
Yeah.
To get stuff done.
I mean, yeah, there are many, many different layers of this because if you think through
it all, because like, for example, um, if you have upfront funding that then prevents
you from being decentralized because someone has to make a decision before the funding can
be used.
So the work can't come, can't come before a decision has been made.
Is being decentralized always good?
Um, the only way, the only way to not necessarily, but the, the only way to, um, to do things in
a way that the state can't shut down is for it to be decentralized.
Hmm.
Okay.
I see.
So that's, uh, so that's the, and maybe it's not possible.
I don't know.
How does the mafia do it?
Like every time I think about these things, the first two things that pop into my head is
like pirates.
Yeah.
And the mafia, the mafia, um, or whatever, the jacuzzi or whatever.
Like, you know, like I grew up close to Italy.
So like for me, it's the mafia for other people.
It's probably other, other things.
I mean, I think they just, they, they operate more like a military, right?
They are.
That's kind of my point because I think they, they operate outside of the state, right?
Yeah.
But they have hierarchies and there is centralization.
Like there is some, there is something like a mafia boss.
I mean, they, they always have a relationship with the state though.
Sure.
And it's sometimes pretty close.
Yeah.
Uh, I mean, I think they're just like a mini state within the state.
Okay.
Um, and also like, I mean, So would it be fair to say that Nostrocket is an experiment
in human collaboration and coordination?
Yeah.
Okay.
Um, I, I, I think like organizations, the way we organize right now is sort of like,
in a way it's kind of like how we used to do open source before GitHub.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
Interesting.
Open source or Russian control before Git.
Yeah.
I like that analogy.
That immediately makes sense to me.
Yeah.
Okay.
Uh, and so like, I mean, I think we definitely need, I mean, there is a lot of scope to iterate
and how we coordinate.
Yeah.
Shout out to and get by the way, and all the projects that try to bring, you know, get up
to Nostar, get up on Nostar basically.
But yeah.
Okay.
Tell me more about it.
So what's the components that you have in mind when you want to build this out?
What do you need in terms of, uh, like the organization, the organizational structure
that you're describing?
What are the tools that you need?
What are the structures that you need?
What are the various rules?
Um, that people would have and, and so on.
And how does Bitcoin play in, into that picture?
Well, this wouldn't be possible without Bitcoin because you need money that can't be stopped
before you can build organizations that can't be stopped.
So just the payout structure alone and the, the, the, the vesting structure alone and things
like that, um, are very, very easy to be shut down by the state unless you're running on Bitcoin.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
It's not a permissionless payment system.
Yeah, absolutely.
Right.
Basically.
So.
And by the way, we see this now with stable coins, right?
Yeah.
With, with big, big stable coin hype and so on.
Last couple of years.
Um, to me, stable coins are kind of the worst of both worlds.
Um, you know, like they, they role play as, um, something that's similar to Bitcoin, but it's,
but it's, you know, controlled by a company, and the money is printed by the state, and it's not censorship resistant at all.
Like, it has all the worst properties that you can think of.
And the entire thing is built on proof of stake, proof of stake chain, which is another layer of fuckery.
Yeah, sure. It's like, take all the bad things, everything that Bitcoin should be against,
and then you throw them into, you know, you lock them into a room, and they create a bastard child, and that's the stablecoin.
And it doesn't matter which stablecoin, they're all the same.
So, anyway, that was my stablecoin rant. I hate stablecoins, with a passion. It's complete insanity.
But, again, back to wrecked occasion. Like, I think people will need to get wrecked, and, like, it just depends.
Like, the censorship starts at the edges, of course, and then it's just, like, you know, like, freedom dies one salami slice at the time.
Exactly, yeah. I mean, it's just going to become the same as the banking system now, where you get shut down because you go to the wrong protest.
Yeah.
So, yeah, which kind of makes you think whether, like, if we had to choose between value flowing from business,
Bitcoin into stablecoins, or value flowing from Bitcoin into altcoins, which one is less destructive?
Yeah.
So, we have two options now, in terms of walking. I think we could walk this way. I think it won't be too noisy for too long.
The other, more insane option would be to walk back up and just walk in circles. What do you prefer?
Circles.
All right, circles. Let's circle.
There's lots to think about when you walk around in circles.
All right, great. Fantastic. I like not thinking.
All right, but back to the stuff you have been thinking. You've been thinking about this for, like, 10 years, right?
Yeah, yeah.
So, tell me about the book that triggered that all. Like, that might be a good segue into the components and, kind of, what do you actually need to run something like a business?
There was a book called Reinventing Organizations by a guy called Frederic Leleux. He's French, but I guess we can overlook that.
Let's call him Fred.
Yeah.
Let's call him Fred.
Fred. So, Fred wrote a book.
Yeah.
What does he say?
He just, and it's been 15 years since I read this book, so memory's not going to be that accurate, but he's basically, he's basically looking at different organizational structures throughout history and categorizes them into different, different modes of operation.
There's, like, the military operation, which is centrally planned, like, extremely centrally planned.
So, very, very strict hierarchies, very strict chain of command, like, very, like, strict rules, strong hierarchical structure.
Yeah.
Yeah, okay.
And then there are, like, mafia, which is, like, one level above that.
Even more strict in some sense?
No, it's less strict.
Less strict?
Than a military.
Less, less centrally planned.
Okay.
And then there are, like, East India Company type things, where they're also centrally planned, but, like, not as much as a mafia.
The control structure is not as, not as direct.
And then there are, like, the modern sort of, like, startups, where things are a lot more, a lot more, um,
More flat.
Yeah, a lot more flat.
And then there are these organizations called teal organizations, and I can't remember.
I think Patagonia is sort of one of them.
There's, like, a thing called holacracy or holacracy or something.
All right, I've never heard that term.
There's, uh, anyways, like, so Patagonia, if I recall correctly, anyway, Patagonia is one of these types of companies where, like, the decisions are made at the edges.
Um, you just need to convince, like, you need to convince, like, two other people in the organization to agree to a certain type classification of decision.
Okay, interesting.
Depending on the consequences of the decision.
Um, uh, and that's kind of where he left off.
Yeah.
Like, that, that one where, basically, there is almost no central planning at all.
Yeah.
No central decision making.
Um, but it's still owned by shareholders.
Yeah.
Right.
It's still central.
The ownership is still central, but the execution is very distributed.
I see.
Um.
And it's not every employee is a shareholder and so on.
Yeah.
And it's also, like, it's still a corporate structure.
So it's still, you know, like, hey team, let's go, like, that sort of stuff, right?
So it's, like, a horrible place for someone like us to work.
What, what, what radicalized you in that way?
What was the horrible corporate structure you've been under?
I feel, I feel like you have a past that radicalized you.
I know.
I was always like, there was never any point where I was able to tolerate any kind of, any
kind of, um, group sort of, uh, I don't even know how to, I don't have the vocabulary.
Group activities.
Team building activities.
Like team, like any of that kind of thing.
Right.
It's like, I'm just like, what?
Like, oh, I don't just, it just goes directly against everything about me.
Like, to my bones.
So you want to be self-motivated, not motivated top down.
Yeah.
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Like, like, it makes me feel a little bit sick when someone says, go team or something like that.
Right?
So I don't understand this.
Um, like I'll collaborate with other people.
That's fantastic.
That's, that's actually very enjoyable.
Yeah.
Um, but not when someone else is telling me what we need to collaborate over or how we need
to do it or something like this.
Yeah.
Or where it's like the structure is, is.
So you've always been allergic to authority basically.
Yeah.
Maybe that's the core.
Yeah.
Authority.
So I will defer to authority when I respect that authority over some particular thing that
I don't know as much about.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay.
Like, but I'll decide when like, that's, that's, uh, um, I think everyone does that.
Right.
Yeah.
Normal thing to do.
So the question that you're trying to ask, uh, to, to answer in some sense is, how can you
build a organizational structure that's similar to a company with as little authority as possible?
It has to have it.
Yeah.
And, and so it's for a truly decentralized for something to be decentralized, a commercial
venture to be decentralized.
I don't think, I think it has to come.
I'd have, it can't be, uh, we can go to a religious comparison, which is intelligent design
versus evolution.
Right.
Okay.
I think it has to be evolution.
That's the only way it can't be intelligent design.
Right.
And so like, can profitable ventures or, um, like valuable solutions emerge from through
evolution based on simple rules.
Okay.
This is the core.
Profitability, profitability is, is, is part of the core of the question because my, my go-to
example to explain different organizational structures would be an open source project.
Right.
Yeah.
Um, but profitability flies out of the window.
Yeah.
It's just like, how can you organize groups of people that are passionate about something
in a way?
So that they actually in the long run, basically outcompete companies in many cases, which is
fascinating to me, obviously.
Um, but, um, you specifically want to have the monetization puzzle piece in the midst of it
all.
Right.
Because if you don't generate, if you don't generate revenue, you can't feed.
Yeah.
You, you, you have no feedback mechanism mechanism from the market.
It's also, you don't have any, there are no resources there too.
Yeah.
Like it's, uh, yeah.
Yeah.
And open source, everything is voluntary basically.
Yeah.
So that's not sustainable.
Um, unless you're independently funded.
It's, it's, I think it's, I mean, Linux and I think we can see that it's sustainable.
I think it depends on your definition of sustainability.
So those are the, that it's like pre pre organized church.
In some sense, people already gave to a local church and so on, you know, like 10% of
your income, give to a good cause, give to the church.
And I think what we are experiencing right now is like a lot of developers will give 10%,
20%, whatever of that time to open source projects, have a regular job, get paid well.
Yeah.
And on the side, do open source.
There's also a lot of, a lot of, um, commercial ventures, like whatever, like random company
or like Spotify or whatever, they, they, they allow their staff to contribute to projects
cause they're using it.
And it's like, we have a problem with this.
We need to fix it.
So they do it themselves and that drives it.
Yeah.
There's a mix of incentives.
There's a lot of value there coming from.
Um, but, but this is not, this is not a robust, uh, way to do things.
This is not what's going to.
So you want to improve on that.
Um, we need, uh, some, we need some form of paradigm shift that enables us to, um, obsolete
the existing, the existing, uh, way that we organize the state itself.
Okay.
And that has to come from the bottom up.
Otherwise we're just doing the same thing.
So we're talking immediately about the government, uh, governance and enforcement and those kinds
of things.
So, so, so talk me through that in terms of the framework that you have in mind.
What should the government structure look like?
And what is the, how can you enforce certain things?
Like if you, if you have a rule set, most rules can be broken and that's where enforcement
comes into play, right?
Like that's where you need to, to enforce certain things.
DAOs run into this all the time, right?
Like if you have a decentralized autonomous organization and we have many of them.
Some of them, uh, most of them on in the shit coin world, of course.
Um, and I think they can be useful, but they have to find questions to all these answers.
Right.
Like how, how does governance work?
Uh, to some degree, we have this in the Bitcoin space as well.
Just like, I mean, the, uh, the, the current, uh, hot topic, uh, in the Bitcoin world is in
part the government, a governance.
I'm not going to get into it.
Don't worry.
But it is in part a governance question.
It's like, okay, who, who makes the rules inside Bitcoin core?
Who is in charge of the, you know, software development plan?
If you want to say that, then the releases and all those kinds of things and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It's all kind of governance and also enforcement.
And Bitcoin is very interesting because you have these, this triangle standoff situation
and the balance of powers of some sort.
Right.
So, okay.
Developers, users.
Yeah.
It's good that you mentioned this because a lot of people don't understand the very core
of the power, the very core of hard power over the protocol of Bitcoin.
Where does it come from?
Right.
Not, not, not many people have thought about this very deeply.
Yeah, sure.
I mean, if you joined the Twitter discourse about that, it's obvious that most people have
thought deep about these things.
So it's, it's the, it's the people who receive Bitcoin as payment for something who decide
what Bitcoin is.
Oh, okay.
So that, that directly links into your, your mission as well.
Yeah, yeah.
Sure.
I mean, I've said this like many, many, many years ago, like we'll have these fights always
because no one can tell you what Bitcoin is.
Yeah.
You have to decide for yourself what Bitcoin is.
And the moment of decision basically is exactly kind of the, the, the, the economic transactions
that you're involved in.
Yes.
It's, it's specifically the transaction where you provide value in exchange for Bitcoin,
for what you consider Bitcoin, which is why it's important for Bitcoiners to produce something
valuable to trade.
Okay.
I see.
Otherwise it's going to be like BlackRock who decides what Bitcoin is.
Sure.
Yeah.
And this is actually part of the.
So a parallel economy of fanatical Bitcoiners is needed in as part of the immune system.
Yeah.
Ultimately what's needed is, is everyone who produces something to only accept Bitcoin.
All right.
Yeah.
I think we're getting there.
Yeah.
To some degree, but I'm still, I'm still, I'm still kind of curious about the various building
blocks that you would want to provide on a software level.
It has to be extremely simple set of rules because otherwise governance does become a problem.
Right.
And I think it's always a problem.
Well, I think if you, I think if you, if you.
It's one of those problems that doesn't have a solution, but only train offs.
I think we can maybe kill climb.
Right.
Okay.
So if the only decision you need to make is whether or not.
Oh, how did you phrase it?
Fork your way to glory or something?
Yeah.
Which is what.
Yeah.
If this argument gets heated up.
Yeah.
We will fork.
Yeah.
And the market will decide.
Yeah.
And unfortunately the market right now that will decide is going to be wall street.
They'll decide which fork is Bitcoin.
Okay.
So, cause they're the ones who are trading the most value for Bitcoin.
Right.
Which is fake printed USD, which for some reason people still value.
Okay.
I see.
So that's the problem we're in.
The most valuable thing that's being traded for Bitcoin right now is, is USD.
Right.
So yeah.
I see.
Yeah.
Stable coins.
Okay.
Damn stable coins.
What are you thinking in terms of?
What could work is.
Like let's, let's just as comparison, like what, what works, for example, in, in, in,
in the field world right now with most people use or what many people do is like an LLC,
right?
Like do you have a comparison table of like LLC or public company or whatever, those kinds
of things, or like family, family office, you know, single person business.
As no, not really.
How it would map to, to your world.
No, cause it's a different, it's, it's a different paradigm.
Okay.
Um, there's no direct mapping, although there's some, I guess you could, you could use analogies.
So, um, the, the, I guess like the board of directors who make the decisions on how money
is being spent in a company, the only decision they are making is when to, when to issue, uh,
new shares.
If we limit it to that, then, then the only decision, anyone who has equity in the organization
needs to make, needs to make is under what circumstances, like how do we issue?
When do we, when do we create new equity?
Okay.
And then we can narrow that down to, um, what problem did you solve for the organization?
Uh, where, where you should be?
And what, what is the value of that?
All right.
Yeah.
It immediately brings you into the Oracle problem.
How?
Yeah.
You make a bar of soap.
How does any system know about it?
No, there's this that you, you, if you want equity in the organization, you submit a request.
If you've done, if so, let's say, let's say we have, uh, some, uh, yeah, but you could
lie.
That's my point.
Yeah.
But I make a request to get more shares because I produced 700 bars of soap in the last week.
No.
Okay.
Let's take a step back.
So.
All right.
So, um, I'm making this up on the spot.
Yeah.
I see.
I see the, I see the, uh, you just went down.
It's the wrong direction.
Okay.
Get me out of it.
So, um, let's say, let's say, for example, um, um, let's say amethyst, right?
Uh, they, uh, they, they adopt the methodology of organization.
Okay.
The first thing to do is Vitor, the value of what his work so far for this project is worth.
Okay.
How many hours he spent, whatever.
Um, and the, and you'd probably want to do that for all the contributors so far.
Right.
They do that right now.
Right.
They have subsplits in every new release.
Okay.
But let's add up all of their contribution.
Um, based on like how much time effort or now like tokens they've spent.
Right.
And then, and then, um, but that's back to the labor theory of value.
No, no, no.
So how, how now just wait.
Okay.
I can spend tokens all day and produce nothing.
Yeah.
For sure.
Yeah.
But anyone who doesn't see through that is an idiot.
Right.
So, um, so Vitor knows how much his work is worth because that's how much he would need
to be paid to continue doing it.
Okay.
Continue.
He states that as a request for equity.
Okay.
The current, and if he's the first person doing this, then he just approves it himself.
And so that's the initial equity.
Okay.
So, and if he does, if he does, if he is dishonest about that, then that's the end of
people being interested in this endeavor.
Right.
Cause it's.
Every, everyone is smart and everyone looks through every scheme.
Well, if he, if he says his value is like, uh, you know, like 10 million USD.
Then like, and then the value of my contribution is like a dollar, but we've spent like a similar
amount of time.
Like a similar amount of time.
Then I'm just going to be like, no, okay.
I'm just going to fork that and do my own, do it my own way.
Right.
So is it, this comes down to like who, who's enforcing the fair authority of the project.
Right.
Okay.
It's the founder.
Okay.
So if the founder, I understand the forking mechanics, if it will remain in cyberspace
for any real stuff, that's way harder.
Okay.
So real stuff.
I don't know yet.
Okay.
Cause that's harder.
That's harder to, that's harder to stay in cyberspace.
No, no, no bars of soap.
Only kind of, you know, features of NOSA clients.
Okay.
So let's say new NOSA client.
You build a new NOSA client.
Okay.
Um, two days on it.
And you think that's worth like, um, like a thousand USD.
Okay.
Then, um, you, you, um, I incorporate in NOSA.
Okay.
You, you, the broad concept is that you then, um, request from yourself, uh, you basically
create that thousand USD worth of equity in a project at the current value of the project,
which is, um, which, which, which is, well, you can, you can value it as something though,
right?
You can value it.
You can decide.
So, but, but I think basically, um, one set for, I think a good starting point is just
have like one set for one, one, I call them merits, not equity.
Okay.
Cause I don't really like equity is not exactly the right term, but so one set per merit,
right?
Cause there is no market for this yet.
Right.
We didn't know the value, but you just start at one set.
It doesn't really matter where you started, but just say it's one set per per, like one
set of worth of your work is, uh, one merit.
Okay.
Right.
So then you asked like someone else that you asked Pablo to contribute and he can see,
I would never, it would be a bad idea, but just, so then, uh, Pablo comes along and he
sees that the amount you've stated is, it makes sense based on what he can see in terms of the
actual contribution.
Um, he solves a problem.
He contributes something somehow.
Um, his, his amount is probably like quite similar to yours.
Cause it's an early stage thing.
Uh, so then now you have basically, he sends in a merit request and a request for equity.
And then you have to decide whether or not to approve that.
Cause you're the only one, only one who can vote right now.
Cause you have all of the equity.
Okay.
So then we build up a cap table of equity this way.
Okay.
Um, and if you, if you are dishonest in your conduct, other people are other intelligent
people.
And why would you want non-intelligent people to be contributing other intelligent people
are not going to be interested.
Right.
And if you reject someone's request, which is fair, then that's the end of them contributing.
And other people will also see that they won't contribute though.
They can still fork your project.
Uh, but if you're fair about it and everyone else is fair, basically this rewards honesty more
than dishonesty.
Okay.
In theory.
We'll, we'll find out.
Devil's advocate.
Yeah.
Sometimes you want dumb people, definitely because some robots, right?
Amazon warehouse workers, for example.
We have this now.
It's Claude.
Fair enough.
I think when you expand into broader, you know what I mean?
When you expand into broader things.
Yeah.
Like in the, there's good, like, let's say like you organize a conference based on this
techniques and you need people to do like arrange tables or like there's a bunch of like,
yeah.
So yeah.
Yeah.
But it still comes down to the, the project.
So yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
So I won't challenge you.
I think the market will sort that out.
I think, I think, I think to.
Yeah.
So I won't challenge you.
I think the market will sort that out.
I think, I think too.
Unfair system are similar to authoritarian systems.
Yeah.
Which means they need to spend energy and time and resources to enforce.
Yes.
Exactly.
To crack down, like cracking down on stuff.
And it takes a lot of energy.
Yeah.
And in the long run, a self organizing system that doesn't need that much enforcement.
Yeah.
And it doesn't have this crack down problem and all those kinds of things and isn't authoritarian.
Uh, out competes, um, an authoritarian system.
Yeah.
It's like the jungle out competes, whatever.
Like, I don't have a, I don't have, I don't have another, I don't have the counter now.
But no, I actually have it.
The greenhouse.
The jungle will out compete the greenhouse in the long term because the greenhouse needs upkeep.
The greenhouse needs people to keep things in Jack and so on.
And over like a hundred, couple hundred years, a thousand years, the jungle will out compete the greenhouse.
Yeah.
The greenhouse will just break down and wither away and someone will not be able to pay the upkeep.
And that's just it.
It's, um, I think like Piaget wrote about this.
It's like a Piagetian balance.
Not a, not a French dude.
Yeah.
Unfortunately.
Damn French.
There are a few.
I'm not sure if it's stable coins or French, but it's, it's close.
Yeah.
So that's why I think these organizations will out, will just crush the traditional system.
Okay.
If, if you figure out.
If it ever starts working.
If it starts working.
Yeah.
Okay.
So similar, again, similar, similar in the, in the, in the, in the sense that Linux out competed
to the Microsoft servers and open source projects out compete commercial projects in the long run.
Like it's always in the long run.
And open source models will out compete to close.
Yeah.
For example.
And yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Local models will out compete the centralized brain and so on.
That's, that's actually a similar like jungle greenhouse discussion because we have a monoculture
multi-culture thing going on.
Like a centralized brain will crumble on the monoculture dynamics, um, which will be an issue.
I, I, I predict, I think, but anyway, like, okay, so that's, that's your grand vision for,
um, a new organization, a new style of organizational structuring in cyberspace.
Let's ignore the soaps.
Yeah.
For now.
I think we'll figure it out.
It's based around basically contribution merit, which translates to equity and you're paid
out in stats.
Yes.
Did I, is that a summary?
You're, you're paid out in revenue that it, if, if the project generates revenue, then
So sat flows, you got a.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
Same thing.
Okay.
Yeah.
All right.
Okay.
Cool.
Yeah.
Set flows, set flows are the, the, the, the, the, like, it's all about set flows.
Yeah.
Like if you're, if you look at your personal life, I had this long thread.
I'll, I'll have to link to it.
Um, I mean, I can't, it's fucking, you know, nuked my Twitter years ago.
I have an archive somewhere.
I'll dig it out and I'll link to it.
And it was about basically stop thinking about, um, uh, first of all, dollar value.
And in terms of stacking sets, don't like, don't over, um, how should I put it?
Don't obsess over the numbers.
Don't obsess over the numerology of what you're doing.
Yeah.
You have certain economic inflows and you have certain economic outflows, which are your,
your spending.
If you're an individual, if you're a company, it's also your suppliers, all those kinds of
things.
And basically the name of the game is like the difference between your inflows and your outflows
is your balance.
And the, the stuff that you don't like, if, if, if your balance increases over time, that's
your savings.
And so you have to maximize your inflows.
You maximize your economic inflows by again, like producing soap, whatever.
Yeah.
Or like clients with features that hopefully people will pay for and reduce your, your outflows,
like spend less than you make and so on.
And whatever you can afford to save, save it in Bitcoin.
And that's basically what, what, what that translates to what actually is now a thing.
Like we went from a stay humble stack sets to like the, the third line stay humble stack
sets, focus on your craft, right?
It's like, get really good at what you're good at.
And that will make you useful in society.
It will allow you to earn money.
And it, and I kind of like the point of the whole thread was to, I drew it.
And like, it's literally like a green income stream and like a red outflow stream and so
on.
And the point was to, to, to, to get the point across that it doesn't matter whether you
earn, like that's counter to your point, by the way, it doesn't matter whether you earn
Euro or USD or Japanese yen or whatever.
As long as you're saving in Bitcoin, you're still gold.
Yeah, that's true.
And so, so you just have to save and hold in Bitcoin.
And, and of course, over the long run, I mean, I am in this position.
Like I earn Bitcoin exclusively and I like, like all my, I still have books on Amazon.
So I still have like, you know, a little bit of fiat income, but it's negligible.
And, and all, most of my spending is in Bitcoin as well.
So I live on a full Bitcoin standard.
All my savings are in Bitcoin basically.
I don't have any savings.
I don't have any Bitcoin.
Like, you know, obviously we just were in a boat before.
So like that goes without saying, but I think that's also the, the, what happened to
a lot of people.
Like if you start doing that, your savings will be like 1% is in Bitcoin.
A couple of years pass and then it's like, it's not 1% anymore.
Maybe it's like 10 or 20 and another couple of years pass.
And it's very quickly going to be 90 with things that are going like fiat is only going down.
Bitcoin is hopefully not going down as much as fiat.
And so, I think rephrasing everything about economic inputs and outputs makes a lot of sense,
not only on the individual level, but also on an organizational level.
Although one key requirement of this would be that it's non-custodial, right?
So yeah.
Yeah.
You have to hold it yourself.
You have to hold actual, you have to hold Bitcoin.
Yeah.
I don't count Bitcoin exposure as holding Bitcoin.
The organization can't hold anything.
It's just a conduit.
Oh, interesting.
So then we get into what does it mean to hold Bitcoin and can it be done in a multisig kind of question.
We don't need to hold anything in a multisig.
Because you do the payouts all the time.
So everything flows through the system all the time.
Yeah.
Okay.
Because you don't want to hold Bitcoin on behalf of Bitcoin.
Yeah.
But that kind of doesn't work in the economic sense of like, you know, I can't stream a cow.
You know, like in cyberspace, it might work, but it's, it's, you, you need, you need capital
formation and you can't.
Okay.
But what you need capital formation for is to acquire like inputs, right?
Right.
Like if, if I want to sell steak, I can't stream the cow.
You know what I'm trying to get at?
Yes.
You have to raise the cow.
You have to like, and, and, and then you'll get a bunch of money all at once, but it took
you a long time to raise the cow.
Yeah.
But, um, I think as the organizations grow bigger, it's acceptable.
So what basically what people are doing in these organizations is giving the organization
credit, which is their time and effort.
Right.
Or whatever they're giving it, but it can also be a cow.
Right.
They're speaking of cows.
I'm really hungry.
Should we do one more round?
And then like, once we head down, we'll go find a cow.
We'll go find a cow.
We'll stream some, we'll stream, I'll stream some cow in my mouth.
So everything becomes a request for merits.
Okay.
So all the inputs.
So that's, that's basically, that's your, um, that's the cornerstone of the whole thing
is, is the merit based system request for merit, which is like, I understand it as like a share.
Yeah.
Okay.
It's a share in the set flow.
Okay.
But then if it is married based, like what, what it, it, it, it relies, the whole system relies
on human judgment, right?
Yeah.
But it's adversarial judgment.
So, um, you are submitting a merit request.
So you value your, whatever you're providing, providing you value that yourself.
Uh, and you're taking a risk because maybe you don't, I mean, that's just like, that's just
like a negotiation for a salary.
Right.
In some sense.
Yeah.
Here is what I want to have.
And then the other party comes back to you.
No way.
Like I'm maybe I'm going to pay you half.
Yeah.
But I think if you're, I think generally speaking, if you're like honest about the, either way,
it's fine.
Because if, if you honestly believe in the value that, that that's the value that you just provide
that to you to continue doing this, you would need this much value.
Then if they say no, then it just means you can't continue doing that.
Anyway, it doesn't make sense.
And then, um, if, if there's a, if there's a, if that's because of, uh, if they're rejecting
that because of dishonesty, like they don't want to, they want to keep all the merits.
Right.
Then, well, that, that's the end of that, that project.
Right.
And you can fork that and just do it your own way and you become the authority now.
All right.
So, um, this is why it, it, it basically, uh, the more honest you are, the more you're going
to get out of this system.
I mean, I think that's true in principle.
I would agree with you kind of in the long run.
I think that's like all the big religions or Christianity in particular has in, that's
going for it.
It's like basically the best way to live life is to never lie.
Yeah.
Otherwise you won't go very far.
And I think, you know, I think because people are, humans are.
It adds friction.
Human massively.
I mean, you have to keep all the lies in your head and so on and build up these separate
worlds that don't exist.
Yeah.
Um, but also humans are very good at, you know, um, they have reputation machines basically.
Yeah.
Like very good at remembering.
There's another interesting thing, which is, so this whole thing also came about because,
um, um, we need to build organizational structures that are immune to take, take over by psychopaths.
Okay.
But that's really hard.
That's kind of, I think this solves it.
Okay.
Yeah.
They can operate within this if they don't do the psychopath.
You just fork away, but that only works in cyberspace.
We're back to the enforcement thing.
Kind of.
No, I think.
I think.
Like if you can easily fork, then I would agree.
Mm.
To some extent.
And we see this with open source projects.
Like where there's lots of psychopathic people.
Yeah.
Of open source projects.
And sometimes the other contributors just like, you know, fork him away.
Yeah.
So I would agree with that.
But with, in real world scenarios, I think it's, it's harder.
It's like forking away a bad King.
Right?
But they only got in there by, they only got that position.
I don't, they can't get that position in the first place.
Cause it doesn't matter how much talking they do.
They're not going to get the equity unless someone approves it.
So like.
Yeah.
But people can be convinced and people can be swindlers.
And you know, some of the, uh, most powerful people were very convincing and charming,
even though they didn't tell the whole truth.
Yeah.
Sure.
There was this one Austrian guy who, you know, was a great painter.
Yeah.
He was a good painter.
And I mean, we have to, uh, you know, you have to separate the man from the art.
Always.
Yeah.
But you get my point, right?
Like then I think this happens in open source projects as well, where it's just, it takes
a long while until you figure out that someone is actually insane or bullshitting or what
have you.
But this, this, this, this, this pushes that, this brings that to a head immediately because
they're asking for equity based on the problem they've solved and the value of solving
that problem.
And so the discussion happens right then and there.
Like, is this guy full of shit or not?
Yeah.
But it's still, it's still a subjective evaluation.
So you always have, have kind of differing opinions.
Yeah.
I mean, I, this is actually valuable and so on.
Yeah.
Like right now.
But you, but you decide that by when you go to a shop.
With differing opinions on on-chain steps for example.
Yes.
But you, you decide this in the same way as whether you're going to buy something, buy a product
or service in the market though.
Right.
So you see straight through whether.
Okay.
So, all right.
I think, I think I, I tried, I really tried to wrap my head around it.
I think I understand it better now.
So thanks for all that.
Let's switch gears completely.
Okay.
Step one.
You have to pull out your phone and tell me where we're going to go because probably there's
some other people that already found the cow.
Yeah.
Let's see.
And step two is, I don't know.
I'm just going to ask you random shit until we.
Yeah.
Until we get there.
Until we find something to eat.
That's the plan.
And take a dime.
Don't worry.
It's like the three listeners.
Like most people drop off after five seconds of noise.
So the one and a half listeners that are still listening won't mind.
Okay.
I just messaged the group.
Let's see what happens.
Let's see.
I'll just walk into the whatever center.
I think.
And it's just going to be a different kind of conversation.
I have no idea what I'm going to ask you.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Like how have you been.
How have you been cooking on the agent side and those kind of things?
Because you told me you want to return to Nostra Rocket and kind of build it out
some more.
Yeah.
So how would you do it from the kind of your.
I'm going to build a.
Def Ops.
Yes.
So.
Okay.
Let's go even more abstract.
All right.
I'm going to build a.
Last 45 minutes.
We're in the abstract enough.
Yeah.
Let's go.
I'm going to build a new kind one client.
Okay.
And I've got some ideas about that.
But I won't go into all of it.
But humble horse.
The humble horse client is going to be.
It's going to be coming back.
Okay.
And.
And then I'm going to build the rocket system into that.
Okay.
We should actually probably go this way.
Thereabouts.
Oh yeah.
That's where.
Yeah.
That's the right direction.
Okay.
So you're going to build a new client and you're going to build Nostra Rocket into this new
client.
So.
Because.
Because the value.
I think one.
One key issue with getting this to actually work is that it can't be built for the sake
of building it and then try and get other people to use it.
I need to build it for a product that I'm making.
Okay.
And build it around that.
And then I'll run into the correct problems that I need to solve.
Okay.
For the next step.
Right.
Because.
It needs to be.
Advised by.
Running up into the real world.
Okay.
So.
You want to actually bring it to market.
And then see what happens.
Yeah.
So I'm building a kind one client to do that.
And.
On the.
On the dev.
On the development side.
Uh.
I've been working on an agent harness.
Specific to that application.
So an application specific agent harness.
Okay.
Interesting.
So that.
It's very easy.
Uh.
I'm stuck.
Well.
I'm.
I've.
I've been playing with like pie.
And.
A few other harnesses.
But.
Um.
I think the real.
Value.
The real.
Sort of thing to do next is.
Um.
In how you.
Uh.
Use.
Basically like a genetic algorithm approach.
To solving problems.
And.
Gate that.
By.
Uh.
And how you gate that.
Right.
So like.
Um.
Tests.
And whatever.
Right.
Okay.
But.
Going beyond.
Similar to.
Like.
The genetic approach.
Is different from.
Fast testing.
For example.
Yeah.
So you want to.
Evolve.
Your.
Solutions.
Yeah.
And.
I think if we can.
If we can figure out.
How to evolve.
Things.
Rather than.
Explicitly.
Define them.
Up front.
I think that's when.
We can really unlock something.
Next level.
That we haven't seen yet.
So.
Things.
That's with.
The traditional way.
Of doing it.
Is with tests.
But I think also.
We can use formal methods.
Um.
Have you heard of something.
Called TLA plus.
TLA plus.
It's.
Created by.
I'm not sure.
It's a.
It's a thing that.
You can use to model.
A state machine.
To verify that.
It doesn't go into any.
States that.
Unexpected.
My formal specification.
Training is like.
15 years ago.
Or so.
Okay.
So I know a little bit.
About these things.
I'm.
I'm not up to date.
With kind of.
The state of the art.
That's okay.
It's.
It's basically like.
Validating that.
Um.
The code is.
Uh.
The code.
Accurately.
Yeah.
It actually does.
What it.
What the specs.
Yeah.
And so like.
All those ideas are.
Yeah.
So I think if we.
If we use that.
As the gate.
For.
So.
What you're trying to say.
How so.
Like.
Well.
Because I was thinking.
If you.
That the simple rules.
You described.
Yeah.
Should obviously.
Be kind of verifiable.
And those kind of things.
But for the harness.
I don't.
I don't get it.
You're a formal specification.
For your harness system.
Um.
So that you.
Uh.
Don't break things.
That exist already.
Essentially.
Is this a more advanced.
A more.
Reliable way.
Of doing testing.
Okay.
If you're building something.
For.
For a NOSTA client.
It's not necessary.
But I was just using it.
As an example.
Uh.
For a NOSTA client.
You just need tests.
It's.
That's enough.
I think.
Okay.
As long as the testing.
Is really good.
Uh.
So basically.
What I want to get.
What I want to end up with.
Is.
A harness.
That makes it very easy.
For.
Other people.
To contribute.
To the project.
So they don't have to adapt.
They don't have to spin up.
Their own harness.
And figure out.
How to.
Build.
How to add features.
Or whatever.
To this project.
They just use.
The existing harness.
Um.
And that has.
Everything coded in there.
Already.
Has.
So this is optimized.
For this specific.
Stack.
And this specific.
Application.
Um.
I mean.
You're not alone.
Lots of people.
Are building out.
Specific.
Specific stacks.
And specific harnesses.
And agent systems.
For their.
For their use case.
Yeah.
So.
But this is.
I want it.
Specifically.
For one app.
Okay.
To develop one particular app.
Right.
So like.
Okay.
Which is a NOSTA client.
Okay.
Yeah.
Um.
And users can add.
Feedback.
Or report problems.
Or whatever.
And that just goes into.
Into the problem tree.
And then.
Anyone can solve those problems.
Okay.
And then they get.
I feel like I have a.
Very left side of the buck.
Or version of that.
In the sense that I have.
Uh.
For all my little side projects.
I have like.
One.
One agent.
Per project.
I showed you this before.
Very briefly.
You know, like I can DM no solutions.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And say like, you know, transcribe this episode or change the title or whatever.
And I have some others where it's actually like every night cron jobs run that just go through open GitHub issues.
And if it's easy enough, then it just packs it and creates a PR for it.
Yep.
And then I just, I, as the human, look over the PR and merge.
So similar idea in some sense, I think, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Let's just make it very easy for other people to contribute, which I use the regular GitHub development flow, basically.
So if someone created an issue, I won't even have to fix it.
Like, it will be picked up automatically and so on.
I just do the review.
So in this situation, you would get all the merits for the tokens you burned to do this.
Okay, yeah.
But if someone else jumps in, they can get it.
All right.
How are we looking on the cow front?
You know where we are?
Where are we going?
Let's see.
Or no?
No one's replied.
Yeah, we're, we're out cold.
It was seven minutes, I sent it to the message seven minutes ago.
We'll have to, we'll have to find our own place.
No, I don't know.
Someone will reply.
We'll, we'll make it.
We'll not starve.
But I'm proper hungry.
Okay.
I'm proper hungry and close to out of steam.
All right.
Let's go find food.
So.
I don't want to be around a hungry Gigi.
No, no, that's fine.
That's fine.
I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm not.
I'm not as, as, as hangry as I, as I used to be.
Oh, okay.
That's an improvement then.
Yeah, it is.
It is.
I grew up a bit.
I try at least.
But how can people help?
Like if you, if you want to build this out and make this a thing.
Yeah.
Um, like what would be step one, like read the book you mentioned or like what, what is something
actionable, what is something actionable that people can do to, to help you out and make
this vision a reality?
Um, just ask me questions about it.
On Noster?
On Noster, yeah.
All right.
That'll get me thinking about things that I haven't thought about yet.
Okay.
So just reach out to you.
They can look at it.
Pick your brain.
Yeah.
If, if, if, if someone was listening and everything made perfect, perfect sense, just DM you.
Or if you think I'm an idiot, tell me why.
No, I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around it, but I think I'm too, I'm too wedded
to the things I know.
I'm too wedded to the traditional structures of like, this is how a startup works.
This is how, uh, like the things you mentioned, this is how the military works.
This is how a regular organization works.
This is how a regular cap table comes together, whatever.
This is how a board of directors works and they have all these roles and so on.
Yeah.
And so what I'm kind of, to me, it's, and I think you would say this is a feature, not
a bug.
Um, I, I would guess to me, it's just, um, too undefined, like not strongly defined
enough, but I think that's exactly what you want to fight against.
It's actually very clearly defined.
This is much, uh, um, there's the rules are much simpler because we, yeah, yeah, that's
the, the, you have the merit points and the merit leads to shares basically.
And so I do understand this in like an open source system context.
I think it gets very hairy, very quickly once you move out of that.
And I still think that the, uh, what has married and what hasn't isn't an easy answer and how
to measure married is also not easy.
The, the, the person who produces the work, but then, but then you, but then you're back
to, again, the, the salary negotiation.
Yeah.
But that's fine.
Yeah.
This is how, and then you have salary negotiation tactics.
And so, so there's always people that are overpaid and there's people that are underpaid.
Everyone knows this in every company.
Like there's always someone who, who pulls a lot of weight and is very shy and humble.
And there's always other people that just oversell themselves.
And it's just our great talkers and have like a big personality and don't do shit.
And they just, they're by definition completely.
But this, this, but this collapses that into what problem did you solve?
So in some sense, it's a shorter feedback loop and a closer feedback loop in some sense.
I think fuckery gets detected early quickly when you see, I mean, open to, to, to, to, to be
fair, like open source projects are extremely merit-based.
So, so you have that going for you in your line of argumentation, basically, where it's,
it's very hard to bullshit your way through open source usually.
And just because everything, um, transparent.
Yeah.
And also like you can see what people are doing.
Yeah.
And there's also a bunch of people who have the same, a similar level of expertise or
backgrounds.
Yeah, yeah, you, you, you, you, you're exactly.
It's not, it's not an HR person that checks you, uh, uh, checks you're married, but it's
your peers that check you're married basically.
Yeah, exactly.
Yes.
Peers.
Yeah.
Let's end on that because I'm super cooked.
I'm super hungry.
I always end on a hug.
Thanks for doing that and, and indulging me and yeah, we'll see what people think.
I think it's, it's more clear for me now.
What do you want to build?
Um, and yeah, I hope you'll get a lot of the M's we'll see you'll get a lot of GM's at
least GM's.
Yeah, we'll get, we'll get a lot of GM's.
That's what's going to happen.