-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactored the README by audience and not implementation #2
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
EYE1 = explain the the **WHY** then leave the HOW and WHAT to subsidiary files HOW2 = the goto-list for different people FOR3 = tokenomics if any WHO4 = entity relationship diagram for the human actors (the digital ones are subsidiary files) HIV5 = summaries of crtical risk factors MUT8 = significant changes worthy on being on the README, but versioning information should be subsidiary BOT9 = activities the automated bots are tasked to perform.
@@ -2,20 +2,32 @@ | |||
|
|||
## EYE1 | |||
|
|||
The legal possession of this `CRED` token is [recordat] | |||
The legal possession of this `CRED` token is [recordat]() of the _social engagement_, skills, and side-projects of the owner. In conjunction with srCRED [^1] ¿TBA?, it is LexDAO's assessment (passive and active/explicit voting) of participating in legal engineering activities including: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cred should be a grantable right by qualified members. If you have earned the right to vote you can distribute cred of a particular group. If you have earned a committee role you can distribute cred of a different group. If you have academic status or certifications etc you have a different group of cred you can distribute. All at the individual member discretion. Committees themselves might also offer awards that represent cred of a different order. I think there is a lot of depth to build out here.
|
||
> [!CAUTION] | ||
> There will be progressive upgrade in the associated contracts ... currently by minting a new token every year, the information loses continuity so an important worktask is to find the right improvements in ERC721 such as handles and not pointers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't need to update the 721. I want to use it as a key for the 1155. Which is where all (most) upgrades take place. Think of the 721 as your keycard and the 1155(s) as your network tokens. Like a certificate authority on a network. Then you can bolt 4337 and 6551 to the 1155. All are compatible together to make a proper system architecture.
## Core Script Files | ||
[LexDAO Token Generator](https://github.com/cimplylimited/file-processing-scripts) | ||
## WHO4 | ||
Only for paidup members (opt-out) and l'externs (mandatory). Guests are assumed by default to be anonymous (but can voluntarily opt-in) and will not participate in the srCRED measurement (though their impact may flow onto members as in popular choice voting for most popular mentor). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's fine. We should have a concept of delegated authority discussed at length with pros and cons as a general philosophical consideration to overlay into aspects of the DAO.
- on the balance of probabiliies | ||
- beyond reasonable doubt | ||
|
||
by running multiple discord bots and weighing their frame assessment to automate the central accounting problem. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do me a favor and lets leave the accounting thing to the side. I have a model to discuss with you. We need some more foundational things first. This is on my mental dev map but we're not ready.
EYE1 = explain the the WHY then leave the HOW and WHAT to subsidiary files
HOW2 = the goto-list for different people
FOR3 = tokenomics if any
WHO4 = entity relationship diagram for the human actors (the digital ones are subsidiary files)
HIV5 = summaries of crtical risk factors
MUT8 = significant changes worthy on being on the README, but versioning information should be subsidiary
BOT9 = activities the automated bots are tasked to perform.