Just for reference, here is the original proposal I shared with Gideon and Angela to inspire some of the direction: Token Singularity: Uniting TEC and TEA to Create TokenGaia GPT - Google Docs
The goal would be to create a TokenGPT, or TokenGaia. A real tool built by the Commons. Something that I hope this proposal explores and can be implemented in the future, perhaps as soon as next year.
Agree - a real tool, built, governed and owned by the Commons! 
Thatās the goal.
@everyone : please share comments, Iām open to discuss any questions you might have.
I love the vision here! AI + Allo + TEC + TEA
I found TEA via TEC, so it took me a while to realise they were not officially one and the same commons. Itās great to see the merger as I value education, collaboration and open knowledge sharing as a strength for any commons. Few questions, thoughā¦
On the feedback loop, I can follow the reinforcing flow from NFT Proof through to attracting higher quality projectsā¦ but I am a bit confused as to what leads to more scholarships,
Iām stoked & surprised to see my name here. And because my name is linked to strategy and fundraising, I am going to raise the concern that the proposal lacks the information I would need to make an informed funding decision for a budget of this size.
There are multiple proposals here linked together by a shared vision. It appears to be a proposal to fund several interdependent but quite different streams of work, and although thereās plenty of information, thereās very little transparency on how funding will be distributed across/within
I would recommend 1) a shared vision statement and then four (4) separate proposals to simplify, clarify and provide funding and operational transparency with precise information on what work is being funded and who is accountable for the delivery of milestones &/or OKR. Happy to help, if needed &/or if this is part of the fundraising Iām tagged on?
I am really excited about this idea! Super pumped to see this come through. In my recent discussion with @akrtws we ideated through some of the potential use cases of GPT4 in the Token design process and I want to share them here to bounce ideas with the community.
The image to text module of GPT4 could be used to convert visual maps or stock and flow diagrams into CadCAD code, We could think of giving context to GPT 4 on how to solve simple examples and show it the expected code as output. Then expose that trained API to the end users where they would just have to send in their visual map in a defined format and GPT4 returns structured code with context and comments. Something like this was done in this customer study: https://openai.com/customer-stories/be-my-eyes. Iām confident we can already do this for simple models.
Use GPT4 for analyzing the models once they are built. Iāve personally used ChatGPT the last few months to guide me through the analysis cadCAD models and it helped me run Monte Carlo and parameter sweeps too! I could chat with it and ask it what kind of analysis is possible and it would help me ideate through the steps!! Most of my code in the CadCAD and Machinations article was done using chatGPT as well including the API calls, Clustering of trading data and data visualizations: https://medium.com/@e4rohan/a-conversion-guide-for-machinations-and-cadcad-a-translation-layer-bf562f67ff73. I would only imagine GPT4 with higher context window could aid us way better and guide others with their data analysis.
We could even use GPT4 like Khan academy does in this example: https://openai.com/customer-stories/khan-academy to guide the teams through the process of thinking through stakeholder mapping, incentives and disincentives etc. In the khan academy user story, they were able to restrict certain outputs like giving direct answers to students and instead guiding them through the process of thinking about the problem. I was amazed at how well GPT4 is able to play a role of a tutor understand instructions and this could be super useful in our use cases too.
These are just some of the ideas I have and I would love to hear how others are imagining the use cases of GPT4 for Token Engineering.
Thanks for sharing @roro , I hope this makes the idea of AI-powered TE more tangible for @everyone.
Let me add that these are first ideas - Iām sure @roro and others will find more.
For the PoC we should select one/several use cases that:
This is part of the strategy work needed for āAI-Powered Token Engineeringā, part II of the proposal.
Thanks for your questions @lee0007, valid questions. 
On feedback loops:
- The feedback loop appears to depict that āHigher Quality projectsā convert to more āScholarshipsā Is that correct?
- Or does attracting interest from funding partners and more money reinforce scholarships?
- And in what way are more scholarships limited based on either grants or funding?
First, letās see whoās receiving TE Academy NFTs at the moment:
a) students for completing the TE Fundamentals course
b) course authors at TE Academy
c) study group hosts at TE Academy
Minting a) student NFTs is charged with a fee aka a funds community contribution, while minting b) and c) is free, as the community contribution is work, such as creating the educational material or running study groups in work.
Goal is to make all parties contributing to the value of our community, and to enable future activities.
We acknowledge that not all students can afford paying fees, thatās why weāre raising funds for scholarships via 3rd parties. Think of the partners we had on board for building TE Fundamentals, Web3 protocols, accelerators, and our own community, the professional token engineers who can afford supporting others with a donation and want to give back.
Now how will great projects support fundraising for scholarships? With great projects at TE Grants Rounds with Gitcoin Allo we increase the likelyhood of scholarship funding. The projects are proofs of the value token engineers can provide to the Web3 sector. And - since experts are scarce - proofs that token engineering education matters, and that training token engineers will pay off for the whole Web3 ecosystem. Thatās how great projects at Token Engineering Grants on Gitcoinās new Allo Protocol will be drivers for scholarships fundraising.
Based on Q2 have we closed all the loops? and objectively considered where/if negative feedback is present. Where/how does removing funds from the common pool play in here?
I would not claim to have closed all possible the loops by Q2. Weāll find more! In fact, building the $TEC economy needs ongoing token engineering iterations, including analyzing the results, growing token utility etc.
I hope to see more token engineering at TE Commons! With the proposal we aim to start building this loop - for the first time. And weāll start collecting data to draw conclusions and further iterate.
On removing funds from the Common Pool: technically, itās a negative/balancing feedback loop - yes, any successful grant proposal decreases the amount of funds available on the Common Pool. However, itās not ānegativeā at the core, isnāt it?
Spending funds is an investment in growing our economy. Ideally, any grants proposal at TEC adds value to the commons, and we ā this is the new thing weāre starting here! ā we can capture the value created and fuel the Common Pool.
There are multiple proposals here linked together by a shared vision. It appears to be a proposal to fund several interdependent but quite different streams of work, and although thereās plenty of information, thereās very little transparency on how funding will be distributed across/within
- TEAIC
- Gitcoin Allo
- TEC Operation
- TEA Operations
I would recommend 1) a shared vision statement and then four (4) separate proposals to simplify, clarify and provide funding and operational transparency with precise information on what work is being funded and who is accountable for the delivery of milestones &/or OKR. Happy to help, if needed &/or if this is part of the fundraising Iām tagged on?
Yes, it is!
Note thereās a separate Allo/Token Engineering Grants Round proposal.
For the operational part of it, we decided to not put up separate proposals,
because if only some these proposals would pass, and others not, the passed proposal(s) would be pointless, because joint activities are interconnected.
We need both, TEC and TEA to close the loop at TE Grants Round, and to make the AI-powered TE PoC happen.
In both workstreams, we (TEC x TEA) will have to collaborate to get results, and in both cases we can make the most of it if we collaborate - thatās why weāre proposing a joint effort.
That said weād like to invite @everyone to the AMA session tomorrow - come with your questions! 
Reposting that link to tomorrowās Discord AMA about this proposal, just to make sure everyone sees it:
This is fantastic news, and congratulations the core team putting this together! Iām happy to see such an important and ambitious plan. I see this as a transformation between two digital entities. As a technology enthusiast and systems thinker, we should consider the importance of taking a holistic and systems thinking approach to this transformation. With the proposed 4-month operating budget for TEC and TEA, I would like to share some thoughts around certain areas that were not explicitly addressed. I understand that the work might be underway (in progress), but in the case that it isnāt, Iād like to offer a few tidbits to consider. My only goal is to offer some thoughts to elevate the proposal and ensure a successful transformation.
Embracing Change - Successful digital transformation goes beyond technology and involves understanding the human aspect of change. Letās consider the impact of change on stakeholders and their expectations during the integration of TEC and TEA, possibly a change management plan to address this.
Safeguarding Data - In the age of AI and GPT-4, security and privacy are crucial. For AI-powered TE, we should reflect on the measures needed to protect sensitive information and comply with relevant regs & principles in the token design process. This might be a sticky issue.
Future-Proofing - While focusing on a 4-month operating budget, possibly consider long-term scalability and extensibility. A vision for growth and increasing demand is essential for sustainable success. Post merger what is the plan to develop a continuous pipeline of use-case opportunities, new students, partnerships?
Resource Orchestration - Efficient resource allocation and management are key to a successful transformation, which I think was mentioned in another comment. Thinking about using human and financial resources across workstreams effectively. Possibly establish a tiger team to facilitate rapid problem-solving sessions in multiple workstreams.
Encouraging adaptability - Continuous improvement and feedback are essential for success. Which I think was identified in comments by Angela. Happy that she addressed this point, to establish mechanisms for ongoing learning and adaptation based on feedback and monitoring results (monitoring is a difficult challenge).
Preparedness for uncertainty ā Assessing risks and contingency planning are needed for navigating unexpected challenges. Has the broader team considered an assessment of potential risks and the plans to address them.
Thank you for sharing this plan with the community so that we may collectively offer our thoughts and ideas. When I think about the plan, it reminds me that building a strong community is what will make this shift successful. The proverb āIt takes a village to raise a childā comes to mind. In this case, it takes the combined work, intelligence, and support of the entire community to foster the growth and development of the TEC and TEA ecosystem.
Excited to see how we can secure success and foster a healthy atmosphere for creativity and collaboration in token engineering by cooperating, sharing information, and welcoming change.
Thanks Angela and Gideon for prompting me to offer my two cents (apologies for any typos or grammar mistakes).
Adam.
Really great points, @stratatrader. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In this case, it may actually be more than just a proverb. If this works, we will be raising an intelligent TE agent ā as a community. This is one of the great advantages that an economic commons might just have in this newly emerging space.
I recognise Iāve been quiet here since joining Dec 21. but I have been following the TEC progress and contributing when needed as a quantifier. Until only recently, I have seen no reason to raise concerns or share my limited perspective. To be clear, my recommendation for presenting separate proposals is based on concerns around
While I respect the need for speed here and the potential risk of not passing all three proposals, even as a possible recipient of funds, I have concerns about this omnibus proposalās lack of financial transparency and operational accountability. I value transparency, especially in governance.
See Values expressed in the TEC Community Covenant
Q: Based on this proposal, are stakeholders fairly informed on the value creation I @lee0007 am accountable for and the cost exchange?
I recognise we have a proposal to sideline conviction voting which is yet to be voted on? And a Proposals Road Map, that indicates that three proposals were to move via the TAO Voting to ātestā the process.
This proposal changes that to one
Q: Is further testing justifiable?
Because unlike the 25K small grants proposal this proposal is well outside of the 11% spending limit that would apply to conviction voting. Hence the recommendation is to create three or more proposals that could adhere to the spending limitation and provide transparency.
Iām going to surface @liviade concerns because I agree we are undermining the foundations of TEC governance legitimacy as established Dec 2021 with Polycentric Governance Framework
I recognise this is a time of positive and significant change - and I STRONGLY SUPPORT the vision direction and opportunities presented here - but I do not see any reason that justifies abandoning long-established governance processes that everyone else to date has had to adhere to - until such time as a vote is passed.
Iād love to hear from @liviade @Juankbell @Jeremygospelofchange @ZeptimusQ @natesuits for additional community and governance perspective.
I love the vision; Iāll definitely get the tattoo 
!
So, about those previous agreements ā theyāre definitely important, but I think itās okay to adapt them as long as we respect them to do those changes.
Hereās what Iām thinking if we want them to change: letās run a vote on TAO Voting to tweak any previous agreements, but weāll stick to the TAO Voting parameters we set up before. That way, weāre still respecting the whole āgod modeā thing, and our governance stays legit.
I was kinda disconnected from the TEC for a bit. By using TAO Voting for any changes, weāll keep everything transparent and accountable, which is what weāre all about.
Love you fam 
Hi @lee0007. Iām about to jump on a couple of calls, so let me just respond to your point about financial transparency and operational accountability. When you look at the sections on āhow the funds will be used,ā you will find that there is a good deal of detail here. In fact, if you look at other proposals that have gone through the TEC, there are very few that have provided this much detail.
What we havenāt done is break out here what each person will be doing, and when, over the course of this 4-month period. But I donāt think that is an appropriate expectation for a funding proposal and Iām guessing that thatās not what youāre asking for.
As for this:
There is a certain level of operational trust that the community must have with the teams that are stepping up to do this work. In your case, I donāt think that Angela would have nominated you to play a role in this undertaking if she thought that you were unworthy of that community trust or the value that you would create as part of it.
thanks for raising this concerns @lee0007
I think there was a confusion on how to move forward with so many proposals. What should have happened was for the proposal to sideline Conviction Voting to be submitted first to Tao Voting.
Then if this proposal passed, all the other financial proposals could follow to Tao voting because the governance process would have been successfully updated.
Iām positive everyone is operating on their best fate, and that we had a coordination failure on how to handle all the proposed changes. We are trying to understand exactly what happened and how we can rewind things back to a solid place in terms of governance and still donāt lose the work being proposed for all these initiatives.
We had a meeting now with @Griff @gideonro @akrtws ā Sounds like the most reasonable path forward is to understand what we are going through as a transition moment. Conviction Voting wasnāt working for us and shutting it down has been a consensus for the past few months, no one has opposed it. The proposal to Tao Voting will just execute that consensus technically. Griff offered this way of looking at it, which I was resistant at first but it makes sense.
Tao voting always had the capability to pass funding proposals although we didnāt recommend it to be used that way - itās parameters werenāt designed for it during the Hatch. but because Tao Voting has God mode, params are very strict, so this shouldnāt represent any risk for us, since it will be even harder to pass proposals there.
What would be nice is to take a look again at Tao Voting params soon and question if there is anything that could be changed to use for funding proposals or even if a new module with different params should be installed.
I acknowledge and praise the coordination team for all the work theyāve been putting to make sure everyone is taken care of and praise Gideon and Angela for writing this proposal for the joint operations, considering the urgency and stress involved.
Challenging processes, taking all opinions into consideration and evolving them can be messy but the openness in which all this is being discussed seems like a healthy route.
After the comments in the forum, and the AMA session weāve update TEAās team setup in the proposal above to reflect the most up-to-date status for the voting.
Iām sorry that we didnāt have a chance to confirm @lee0007 willingness to be part of this proposal before it went up. We have been collaborating on TEA comms since Jan. She has asked not to be included on it.
TE Academy Team:
As @liviade notes above, she, @Griff, @akrtws, and I met today for an hour today and discussed at length @lee0007ās legitimate concern about governance process. Our conclusion was that we should proceed, as planned, with the vote on this proposal tomorrow.
Making this transition from Conviction Voting to Tao Voting while proposals are actively moving through the commons has been a complex and difficult process to manage, but itās something that we have been actively getting public feedback on since January 24th. Through that advice process and the ensuing March 20th Tao Voting proposal, there has been no community objection to moving forward with this plan.
The challenge has been in sequencing. We wanted to ensure a transition period so that projects currently planning to use Conviction Voting will have until April 20th to complete the process. Pulling that date in sooner would have been unfair to any such projects. The challenge was that waiting until after that time to submit this proposal to Tao Voting would have put team members within the TEA and TEC at risk of not being paid in April. After going through an extensive advice process, the Coordination Team genuinely believed that Tao Voting was always a viable option for Common Pool funding decisions, even if it wasnāt what we were using in practice. And so, that was the plan that we made public here in the forum on March 20th ā and received no objections.
This has not been an easy process, but I think that as a community we have shown that we continue to balance the needs for transparency, vigilance, accountability, practicality, and fairness in our governance. And as Livia notes above, this path with Tao voting has very strict params and we will want to continue to assess how it works over time for community funding decisions.
I think there are practical realities. Let me throw out some of them in bullet point form:
IMO this is a procedural oversight where we made agreements that maybe given all this info we shouldnāt have agreed toā¦ specifically waiting till April 20th to turn off CV. We canāt know everyone who was making plans based on that signaling.
It feels like there is a practical reality conflicting with our documentation of processes. Technically, Tao Voting is able to send money, in fact it can turn our DAO into a 
so sending 100k was always in the technical reality even tho it was culturally considered out of scope.
Also there is a small team of people in the day to day that is supporting this DAO and they will run out of funding at the end of April, given all this I hope we can just put the normal procedures aside in this transition and do what causes the least stress in order to get to the out come that the DAO wants.
We could have done a better job at formally announcing/creating a transition time where the day-today contributors use Tao Voting for governance while we leave CV open for more external contributors, but oh wellā¦ DAOing is hard.
This article really summs it up well:
The vote for this proposal is now up on Gardens! https://gardensdao.eth.limo/#/xdai/garden/0x1fc7e8d8e4bbbef77a4d035aec189373b52125a8/vote/25
Great article from the RnDAO crew. There are certainly issues identified that resonate with me and I also found this applicable
Cryptocurrency is powerful because it lets us summon up large pools of capital by collective economic will, and these pools of capital are, at the beginning, not controlled by any person. Rather, these pools of capital are controlled directly by concepts of legitimacy.