Designing effective governance | Porter Smith

Transcript

[Music] thank you So today we're gonna be talking about designing effective governance systems and before I jump into the overall talk I want to talk a little bit about why this even matters why it's important and what governance does both at the Civic level and at the commercial level in our society and I think the short answer is it serves as the foundation or the substrate for all of our other economic and social systems that are built on top of it and so our rule of law our Judicial System our commercial system it all rests on this broad basis of governance and so what we're going to go through today is what web3 is doing differently what it offers that's

different than the current system and we're also going to go through a little history though of how we got there because web3 is kind of this mesh of two different Traditions that have arrived to where we are today which is a Civic governance tradition which we're all familiar with which is democracy which is all the things that we're used to in terms of Elections voting Etc and it's also a corporate governance tradition which is businesses how we govern businesses and that's actually a more recent phenomenon that is not something that's been going on for thousands and thousands of years all those societies on the whole have been wrestling with these questions for thousands and thousands of years these are questions of how do we collectively decide what we're going to do how do we allocate resources how do we raise

resources and how do we decide as a group something that's tough you know that might not be an easy answer uh the other thing that web3 does is interesting though that it's playing with is experimentation and so if you look throughout history at times there's been a lot of innovation in society it's often occurred when we've come up with new organizational designs or new organizational architectures that match people and resources in new and different ways so we're going to go through a couple of those and we're going to go through how web3 might be doing that same thing for the digital environment today so here's what we're going to cover we're going to ground the talk with a little bit of history and I think it's going to be interesting and there's some cool anecdotes in there but we'll hit that quickly we're then going to go to

web3 and exactly what's going on today and some of those experiments some of the pros some of the cons and then we're going to get tactical and designing a framework for you and some of the lessons that we've learned along the way from Dallas the last couple years and some of the takeaways that you can apply to your startups moving forward we're going to end on a note of what's next and what could be coming and directions that I think things could go but also some underlying philosophical principles to keep in mind as you architect a governance system if that's relevant to you so the first question is what is governance and historically it it kind of revolves around this idea as I mentioned earlier of making a collective decision and you have different stakeholders who might want different things so on the Civic side I think we're all

pretty familiar with our Civic governance systems but something that I want to kind of hone in on is this idea that we went from centralized systems throughout throughout history which were traditionally monarchies to decentralized systems which are liberal democracies and this is a messy transition and it's still going on today and it's still something that we're still working on as we all know it's very relevant today the thing with it is though is that this transition occurred because of some problems with the centralized systems on the other hand you have corporate governance systems which are really only a couple hundred years old and corporate governance systems started in their formalized form in like the 15 to 1600s with royal Charter companies before that we had investing Partnerships which generally were

Merchant based and these these these existed thousands of years ago and have always been around and the key thing with the merchant Partnerships was if you were someone that had Goods that needed to be traded you needed to trust the person that you were giving your goods to who's going to sail off somewhere to return with what they're supposed to return with and you don't know if you can trust this person or not this evolved over time until monarchies and nation states got involved in the 15 and 1600s with royal Charter companies in Royal Charter companies were interested in because they were one of the first things that existed that enabled people to pull resources in a way that they weren't able to before so if you look at the Europeans they kind of Finance their age of exploration through these rural Charter companies what they did was they

pulled together people wanted to take risk and they pulled together people who were willing to invest in those willing to take risk and they created basically a nationalized form of capital markets that didn't previously exist now did these World Charter companies have issues of course major abuses of power major corruption issues major human rights violations Etc but if you look at it from a structural perspective only what it enabled them to do was Finance these long-term voyages look at North America and the colonization North America Hudson's Bay Company Canada Massachusetts Bay Company Massachusetts Virginia Company Virginia these were all Royal Charter companies the Boston Tea Party which we've got a photo of up here is kind of interesting because at the heart of that was the British East India Company and the fact

that British Parliament removed their tax obligations for bringing tea into the United States so you had a royal charter company at the heart of an event that sparked the American Revolution if you jump to the modern era really railroads brought forward the corporation in its modern form because what it enabled was was two things that didn't really exist before in the same way at scale the first was limited liability so you split personal liability from the professional risk you were taking if your business failed they couldn't take your house the second piece was the capital markets piece the second piece was getting investors involved to invest in something professionally that could go out and become a thing in the world that wasn't otherwise a thing and so this is a big deal because this enabled kind of the modern corporate structure that we have today and what

we're going to talk about next is what that means for the tech world because as you fast forward to today we have large Tech platforms that exist in a special unique spot in history that we haven't seen much before and that is the digital public Commons today's public Commons aren't publicly governed though and this leads to a deficit of trust with these platforms why is this there's a common cycle that a lot of these large Tech platforms run into and it revolves around their lack of credible neutrality so Stanford political science Professor Andy Hall kind of came up with this cycle and we were discussing it and it generally looks the same you have some sort of very Innovative product that Innovative product leads to Rapid growth in a lot of users users join

because other users are on which gives the platform Network effects which eventually leads to a state of incumbency once you're at the state of incumbency you have a lock-in both amongst your customers and vendors and anyone else that's building on top of that platform once that occurs though you end up having kind of short-term outlooks for the company versus everyone else in that ecosystem and we've kind of seen this over and over again with big Tech platforms there's a misalignment of incentives that then leads to a lack of credible neutrality and over time that erodes the legitimacy of the platform itself so the question that we kind of have is is there a path forward or a different way involving some of these platforms that could offer some solutions to this cycle that we've seen play out over and over again and that brings us to web3's petri dish

and I use the term petri dish here very specifically because it's experimental what's going on right now and we have a lot of different cells that are dividing and subdividing and a lot of them aren't going to survive but I do think that the strains that do survive are going to be very resilient and long lasting and could change organizational architectures moving forward so the main question that I kind of think about on a day-to-day basis is what if businesses decentralized the way governments did because they really haven't in the same way now there's some Nuance to this question there's some reasons why they haven't decentralized if you're building a product you don't necessarily want the input of an entire nation in the product that you're building so there's some structural differences there but at the same time

there might exist some conditions under which certain businesses specifically platforms that deal with social legitimacy this can be social media platforms this could be economic platforms that have vendors building on top there's these platforms that might want to establish a relationship of trust in a new way with the rest of the participants in their ecosystem and if that is your business if that's the way that you're going this is a really important new method to potentially achieve that outcome and we're going to talk later on about how we've seen this occur in other non-crypto Industries specifically semiconductor chip manufacturing which I think is a very interesting parallel example because it has nothing to do with crypto directly but it has everything to do with it metaphorically and a lot of it will apply to what you all are building if you're looking to build a platform style

of business so what's different about web3 and kind of these these systems that we're looking at now versus traditional corporate structures there's a couple things kind of broad based that I want to cover the first is this idea of open versus closed systems so we're all familiar with the Wikipedia versus Microsoft and cardi example but generally what we see in open systems is early on they're very volatile you have a lot of activity you have a lot of chaos there's a lot of things going on and a lot of a lot of these systems a lot of these projects won't ever make it out of that stage because you go through this trough of volatility initially but what we see emerge on the back side is if you have a wider group of participants a wider group of people that are taking part in whatever it is

that you're doing you can exponentially accelerate the platform in a way that you simply cannot do in closed systems so this is the this is Wikipedia versus Microsoft and Carta the second thing that we see though is software versus Humans encoding rules so you guys are very familiar with this we'll be very quick on this but the point here is that you now have something that exists that you can see transparently in terms of what is the what are the rules of this project what are the incentive alignments what are the outcomes that they're seeking to establish what is kind of the written code and we have an implementation of it in software versus humans that can perhaps do different things with those rules the last piece is digitally native versus physically adjacent communities and what's important here is you're Widing the aperture for participation

because you can connect with anyone with your project who has an internet connection we see projects all the time that have very International based communities this simply could not exist before so this is something that's net different than corporate governance structures today here's some interesting stats that I wanted to highlight for you and some specific variables that drill down a bit on these differences the first is impact open systems lower barriers to entry and something that I thought was really interesting is last year of the 3000 largest U.S public companies there were only 562 shareholder proposals overall on each mainnet alone there were over 17 000 shareholder proposals so what does this mean a couple different things one is you have to look at this with a

little bit of nuance right because there's operational decisions being made in dowels that are just made every day in corporations that don't go to a vote with with all their folks but when I look at this from an overall kind of philosophical perspective I think it just highlights the key difference between the old way of doing things and perhaps a new way of doing things in terms of how easy it is to get involved and participate and actually vote in something or a community that you're a part of the second piece is this idea of faster iterative cycles and the velocity of incorporating outside ideas into what you're building so the important piece here I think is that participants when they join an organization we've seen this in a number of dows we've worked with their ideas compound over time they get involved in ways that they wouldn't

early on and then those folks end up becoming long-term contributors to your community so there's over 200 000 monthly active voters in Dallas today very different from traditional corporations with that vote vote once a year at their annual shareholder meetings the last thing is how organic this activism is and how it has a very Grassroots Focus which I think Nestles well with web threes very egalitarian and Grassroots ethos BlackRock is the world's largest asset manager they had just they have just over nine trillion dollars worth of assets right now so the largest corporate governance participant in the world 99 of the things they participated in last year were management-based proposals 99 percent so it's just a fundamentally different structure

between what we see in web 3 where everything comes from the Grassroots local community versus a class of managers or folks that are in charge that are basically dictating where everything's going so what are the benefits that we see we've touched on credible neutrality one that I want to hit on quickly is this idea of kaleidoscopic representation so you can have in a formalized setting due to tokens input from folks Beyond just owners of your network what are some examples of this we see it in D5 where if you have a depository receipt token from someone that perhaps is a liquidity provider or you have a liquid staking derivative from someone that has put in assets to be staked in your protocol they get some sort of token that they can do something with that token can have formal voting or governance rights

it can be veto rights or it can be some other way to participate in your system so what we're seeing is a 360 degree way of incorporating customers vendors other folks in your ecosystem outside of just Network owners the second piece is it's an open governance canvas well what does this mean tokens are a new digital primitive that you can play with in a lot of different ways to figure out how you want influence from different stakeholders a couple quick examples identity if you want to incentivize people to identify themselves in some way shape or form on your platform it doesn't have to be like a full kyc process but you just want to know who they are in general they have some sort of reputation you can figure out a way where you can take tokens if they're voted by totally Anon folks and you can

decrease their relative voting weight if anons make up a certain percentage of the overall vote so that's one example another thing you could do is gated quadratic voting so gated quadratic voting would be something similar except for the fact you could diminish or increase kind of the voting weight of those tokens based on different parameters that you set so there's a lot of different things I think that we haven't even seen yet in terms of tokens but I guess the bottom line takeaway is is you can play with different parameters in ways where it doesn't have to be a one for one uh vote per token the last thing might be some sort of like Decay function where the earlier you vote the more your vote counts the longer you wait because you're trying to swing a vote late the less your vote counts so those are some

examples that we've seen I think people are still working through a lot of these implementations but I'm expecting to see more moving forward okay it's not all roses though there's a lot of problems in Dallas we work with Dows every day we see this every day so there's some stuff that I wanted to highlight that we see over and over and over again so that you all can kind of have some takeaways if you're building an open governance system for some pitfalls to avoid or ways to address it the first is the efficiency Paradox open decentralized systems or inherently less efficient than things that are centralized and things that are um just a core team building something and this is okay it might you might want to be open and decentralized later on after you've built a core product and you have product Market fit but at the

end of the day things aren't going to move as fast that's just the way it works there's a couple ways around this that we're going to discuss one of them might be like delegation for example another might be creating certain parameters or funnels for what you want Community involvement in they don't need to vote on everything the second thing is operational vacuums as we know in like physics for example vacuums don't like to exist in nature things like to fill them oftentimes there's an adverse selection process for vacuums for operational decisions and doubts so we see this all the time where there's some sort of just open space where no one's really sure who's responsible for what and oftentimes people come in who sometimes might be amazing and sometimes might not be the folks that you want that are driving forward certain decisions for your

organization and because it's an open organization it's tough to figure out who those folks should or shouldn't be unless that structure is provided for up front the third piece which miles kind of touched on yesterday is the long-term role of the core team it is kind of it it doesn't strike us as normal that you're going to build this thing and you're going to put it into the world and you're going to step away from it but in some of these platforms we see that's kind of what the design is is that you're creating something and you're putting it out there and then you're not in charge fully the way that you might be in a regular Corporation that's different about this and oftentimes there's tension between how much involvement there should be from a core team and how much involvement there shouldn't be there's and how much

Grassroots involvement should come from the community instead last three there's no screening process or filter I think this is something that can be fixed but right now you have folks that enter your community who might have some sort of totally different agenda than the stuff that matters or what you're focused on there's almost like a lack of operational priorities in terms of what the community as a whole should be working on and this is something where everyone has a different voice and because there's no hierarchy it can become very difficult to figure out what people should or shouldn't be doing so hierarchies can be helpful in certain contexts the second tension is community input versus internal expertise Apple doesn't ask their shareholders to design the next-gen iPhone they have Engineers they've been working on it for decades and this is what they do so you guys are

going to run into the same thing oftentimes and there's a tension there between communities that might want to say in things and the experts who know what's going on do you need a community determining every operational parameter for your D5 protocol Maybe not maybe you need folks that are really really good at figuring out that risk underwriting and you don't need the community involvement maybe you only need them for certain strategic decisions the last piece is this idea of direct democracies versus representation or indirect accountability generally through delegation so Dow's it's a copycat world out there and folks just do what other folks have done and we've saw this early on where it was like Hey everyone's going to vote on everything it's going to be just like direct democracies well that hasn't really worked for all the same reasons why direct democracies don't work you

have a community they're busy doing other things they can't follow every single little thing so there's a lack of specialization there's a lack of overall interest you end up seeing voter apathy and there's hard ways it's hard to figure out how to incentivize people to actually really get involved and what we're going to talk about next is that might occur in ways other than just voting there's other ways to participate in a project than just taking a token and voting on something so let's discuss designing a framework for you this is a huge takeaway for me I'm from Baltimore so I had to get the wire in here so that's omr out there you got to have a code you got to think through what it is that you actually need and you got to think through what it is that you actually want you might not need any

of the stuff that I've described so far right now you might need it later you might not need it at all depending on the type of project that you're building all right so here's some structural factors to consider it and this is where we're going to get into the non-crypto example are there any semiconductor chip experts in here or folks that follow the chip industry okay you got one got a couple okay I'll keep it high level so tsmc is a very interesting company tsmc is the Taiwan semiconductor Manufacturing Company it was founded in 1987 by this guy Morris Chang who came out of TI Texas Instruments here in the U.S tsmc flipped the business model for the semiconductor industry on its head when it came and everyone thought that what he was doing was absolutely nuts and the

core of what they're doing is they established a manufacturing layer that is built on credible neutrality for the entire industry so what tsmc does is they allow anyone with a chip design to come to them and they manufacture that chip and then they turn around and give the chip back to you this was radically different than the way the semiconductor industry had functioned prior to 1987. before 1987 what ship companies did is they were all vertically integrated so if you were Intel you designed a chip you fabbed the chip fabricated or manufactured it and then you sold it not only did you sell it to your customer you also sold it to everybody else out there so if you were for example a Japanese Computing company that came to Intel in the early 1970s with an idea for the world's first desktop calculator

you came to Intel and your engineers worked with their Engineers on building the world's first generalized microprocessor and this actually happened Intel delivers the chip to you and you now have a competitive advantage in the marketplace because you've got the world's first desktop calculator the problem is Intel then turns around and sells that chip to all of your competitors down the line so probably good for consumers long term not great for businesses that come up with these initial ideas so tsmc came along and said well wait a second what if we offered incredibly neutral alternative at the manufacturing layer you don't have to be someone that has their own Fab to make a chip we'll make it for you and we won't compete against you this was totally different than the way things had been done because before this if you wanted to

build your own chip you had to come up with a design you had to go to Silicon Valley VCS and this is why Silicon Valley is named Silicon Valley is the initial chip companies and the VCS that funded them and you had to turn around and build a Fab to build your chip you had to go raise 100 million dollars and build a Fab it's crazy like no one did it right tsmc totally flipped that on its head and this enabled what's called today the fabulous Revolution so I think of tsmc as a Bedrock layer on which all these economic skyscrapers were built on top those skyscrapers were companies like Nvidia gpus and AI chips now those are companies like Qualcomm mobile chips that enable cellular connectivity in your iPhone those are even companies like apple and one Chips Google Facebook Amazon these companies that have gotten

to machine learning servers Etc all these specialized chips they design them in-house they're all made at tsmc today so eight and a half of the world's ten most valuable companies either design or Fab chips the one of those eight and a half that Fabs the chips is tsmc the other seven are all your big tech companies Apple meta Etc that design chips in-house and have them fabbed at tsmc the half just in case you guys were wondering is Berkshire Hathaway which is Warren Buffett's holding company because they own a ton of apple the only one that's not affiliated with chips is Saudi aramco they're in oil and gas so that's an interesting little tidbit that's always stuck with me about the world's most valuable companies and I think it's interesting that tsmc is rests among them in this very unique position because they created this layer

of physical credible neutrality I think we could see the same thing happen in web 3 at the software layer and that's something that really excites me another another thing to consider on the structural side of the house is your type of business if you're a D5 protocol and the central nervous system of your business or the heartbeat of your business is a set of smart is a set of smart contracts that your community can come and upgrade you have to be real careful with any changes to those smart contracts and we've seen this play out right it's a torpedo that can sink your ship because that's the entire basis of your business that is a very very different business model than if you're for example an nft company that's looking to commercialize IP where you can let community members go out and do what they want with IP in order to

drive business in some way shape or form you have a threshold for Quality there where you don't want to dilute the brands but you can't sync your shift with one project going wrong so the different type of of business that you're creating is really going to drive your governance architecture in terms of what it is that you want Community involvement in or not it's also going to drive the participatory structure if you're helium and you're looking to get people to put wireless hotspots in an area that's a different type of participation than someone that for example is voting on compound and that might be a different type of participation than an nft project where you're looking for some sort of creative input from your community in some way shape or form so it's really important to kind of take a look at these specific angles and how they relate to your

business versus taking a generalizable approach that may or may not have to do with anything that you're working on okay so where do we go from here there's kind of four guiding principles that I think about one is this idea of what are you governing so Jesse Walden came up with this this thought this concept of progressive decentralization miles touched on this a bit yesterday but if you don't have a business if you don't have product Market fit I would argue that there might not be a ton to govern initially and you might not need any sort of governance structure but once you have a business and once you have product Market fit it could become very important depending on the type of platform you're building if you're building some sort of social media platform it's probably critical to have Community involvement if you're looking

at some sort of economic platform that's going to have other folks building on top the way that tsmc did it might be important as well it might be much less important if you're just doing some direct app that interacts with a wallet for example and you might not need input from anybody so that's one thing to kind of keep in mind the second thing to keep in mind the dovetails on this is how much Community involvement do you need going back to helium is like a decentralized physical infrastructure Network example because I think this is an interesting space that we could see more more variants evolve you need people to physically perform some behavior in the real world that is very very different than someone that might or might not need Community input on a set of risk parameters in a D5 protocol if you need that behavior

from folks if you need them to do something you're probably going to have to have them do different things than someone that's just looking for advisory recommendations for example from their community on the other end of the spectrum another thing that I think about often is building a resilient system all of these projects over time if you're successful end up having a just a total aggregation of users so what makes web3 so interesting to me is it's very Grassroots it's it's all about the little guy in a lot of respects it's a true meritocracy but inevitably larger folks are going to get involved often these can be institutional funds they can be VCS like us there's all sorts of different folks that end up getting involved as the project becomes more successful the question that I ask is how do you build a resilient system that

can deal with both of them what happens if you have a large investor get involved in your project in a participatory way web3 is different it's a positive sum type of activist investing owners or users and users or owners if that truly is the case you can expect people that invest to get involved this is different than normal right this is not how things have traditionally always been now I think it's also good though because it's a positive sum Dynamic I think there's a I think there's ways people can get involved that isn't that doesn't come with you know detractions or negatives like traditional activist investing has but I think at the end of the day that you need to design a system where if you have someone come in who is who is a large holder they have a say in the system as much as someone else does that

perhaps is a Grassroots holder there's going to be tensions there though some communities aren't going to like that some communities aren't going to like the fact that you have a large holder getting involved and before it's just you know the little guys that are out there having their voice heard the last piece that I'll leave everyone with and then we'll turn to questions is this idea of a social contract I think it's really important for communities to figure out early on what the social contract is with the project because that's something that sets expectations long term for what they can expect from both the founding team but also from the project as a whole and I think oftentimes a lot of the issues we've seen with web free government so far is a lack of understanding in what is this core social contract between a

founding team and the protocol they establish and the community that gets involved later on and oftentimes I think having that kind of upfront social contract is something that's very important down the line and serving as kind of a keystone for where your project goes long term so that's all I had and with that I'll turn over for any questions hi thank you very much and um actually I'm also very fascinated by the president model of tsmc um so I wonder like why so if um for NVIDIA or apple why don't they vertically integrate and then produce their own chips rather than using tsmc I think it's because tsmc has such an advanced manufacturing advantage to be honest with you they've compounded chips are a little different uh so this has

nothing to do with crypto just so much tracking but yeah but it is super interesting uh chips are a little bit different because of Moore's Law you have basically an industry that reinvents itself every 18 to 24 months in order to keep up with that Hardware Pace you've got to reinvest uh into r d into hard manufacturing equipment Etc which over time builds just this massive built-in advantage and it's hard to overcome that type of physical Advantage specifically in the manufacturing space to tie this into crypto though you could see similar things happen like there's Network effects but they're different it's obviously maybe not hard Network effects but it could be with things like validators right decentralizing that Hardware set is something that's really hard to do and once it's done I think that does lend a built-in advantage to folks that have those decentralized

validator sets so you can see layer ones kind of act as this this credibly neutral layer what's interesting to me and what what the kind of open question is today is applications built on top of that what do they look like do they look like TMC as well or do they look more like apps that perhaps could be a little more centralized you mean application is built on top of say like ethereum yeah oh okay yeah I think I think you're going to see a wide variety of business models emerge there yeah and but like for application I see the most common defense ability is the liquidity for say like uniswab um or money market I I think I think that's a huge piece I mean the other piece I didn't really touch on this that's really important especially from a governance context is

brand I mean trust everyone talks about forkability and the fact that you can you know take an open source set of smart contracts and go to redeploy it somewhere else I actually think brand matters more in web3 than it does in most other Industries and it matters a ton in other Industries as well but the reason why is because trust there's been so many projects where how many people actually go and read through and audit smart contracts very few right retail users don't do that so what are you going to do if you go are looking to use some sort of a decks do you use uniswap that you trust and has been used by you know millions of people and has billions and billions of transactions or you're going to use something else that's new I think brand is really really going to matter in web3 and I think building that

trust and kind of having that credibility as a team long term is going to be critical for businesses in this space yeah yeah that makes sense thank you welcome reporter thank you my question has to do with like the technical codification of governance so like of course today we have like uh things like Governor Bravo contracts multi-cigs for like almost any team that's managing tokens like what do you see is like the current gaping hole with like how teams are using technology or like encoding smart contracts to enable effective governance and like what you see is like being good right now yeah there's generally two solutions one is you use the existing kind of thing that everyone's coalesced around which is Governor Bravo for the most part the other is you come up with your own bespoke solution so this is kind of the maker dial style the problem with the

ladder is it's tough to integrate with folks because you've designed your own system that might not talk the same way to custodians or to whoever right and so that can kind of lead to some obstacles long term I think this is actually an area that could be hugely interesting going forward um because this is kind of the core infrastructure that folks are relying on to build projects and I think if you come up with new interesting Primitives or infrastructure that people want to implement in their dials one it could be a great business um but two it's it's just really important because as we've seen everyone kind of relies on Governor Bravo now but that it's a couple years old I mean you could see an updated system come out that's just net new that offers all sorts of new capabilities that folks don't have today and it also lends

composability in the governance system so you could you could see some interesting things like liquid delegation and there's a variety of things that folks are working on um I think nouns in uniswap and optimism are all kind of in this ecosystem of working on interesting new governance Primitives and I think you could see some set of smart contracts emerge from there that could be a new standard moving forward hey thanks for the great presentation I'm Nikita from chain Patrol um I've seen uh a lot of examples on Snapshot popping up recently where uh people doing like phishing and scams are actually like they'll not get enough like ARP tokens or uh tokens on other platforms to be able to put forward a

proposal and they'll actually put like a fishing Link in there and basically like have you see and this is kind of like you know using the voting system for like malicious behavior and so have you seen any examples where um you know communities have decided that somebody shouldn't be able to vote because that's kind of like a controversial topic but if like if you're kind of I guess abusing the voting system is there any approaches that uh communities or Dallas have taken to to kind of limit like people abusing the system yeah that's a good question I mean I think in general any sort of like open face could be a vulnerability any sort of point of interaction with you know on with anything on chain is a

point of vulnerability um one way that you could deal with that I think is having some sort of official voting portal which is the only place where you go to to execute whatever it is that you're doing um I'd have to dig in more of the specific snapshot example I know what you're talking about though I saw it on Twitter um I I do think though that going forward this gets back to the trust piece that I talked about earlier where it's really important to figure out kind of where you go to do these types of things and I think at the end of the day what you'll probably see emerge is more limited governance systems that it kind of enable voting until use cases that occur in very specific instances so that you're not doing this on a daily

basis and folks can come in and kind of take advantage of some of these vulnerabilities so I think like embedded on off switches are going to be something that you'll see pop up more and more et cetera but at the end of the day I think it goes back to just having some sort of trusted interface where folks go to do their to do their voting Snapchat kind of is that I just think at the end of the day that these guys figured out some sort of you know workaround yeah awesome thanks Porter thanks [Applause] [Music]