Week 15
Mon 7th Apr - Sun 13th Apr 2025
Last updated
Mon 7th Apr - Sun 13th Apr 2025
Last updated
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, guillermolucero, Sucre n Spice, UKnowZork, Évéline Trinité, LordKizzy, advanceameyaw, hogantuso, Slate, AshleyDawn, Tevo, Effiom, Kateri
Purpose: Monthly call for all Workgroups to discuss Program-wide issues
Working Docs:
Priorities and Budget Constraints
Product identity and Methodologies
Ecosystem overview and Workgroup Coordination
Projects and Collaboration Strategies
PRIORITIES AND BUDGET CONSTRAINTS We discussed possible collaborations with spin-offs and other partners and how to deal with the current token prices which is at $0.16 today, half of what we calculated Q2 budget at. We considered different WGs past and intended collaborations, and Guillermo proposed that in future, we'd need to create a strategy that takes account of the effects of market price. We came to the conclusion that everyone - spin-offs included - will be affected by the low token price. We also had discussions on who we have to reach out first in the program.
PRODUCT IDENTITY AND METHODOLOGIES We discussed various technical tools created by the workgroups and we thought of having to create different approach and methodologies on the tools created (We considered the idea of developing new approaches and methodologies for how these tools are used or improved). We also thought of how we can package that to share it with spin-offs and make it something that is to their advantage to use. We talked about having an independent research to look at different spin-offs that we have in the ecosystem and we’ll add a page to the current "Workgroups >< wider ecosystem collaborations" spreadsheet that outlines what we offer, which workgroup is it? What piece of tooling is it? And why a partner might need it. We decided to postpone the discussion on conducting independent research until more people have had the chance to share their input.
ECOSYSTEM OVERVIEW AND WORKGROUP COORDINATION We emphasized the importance of understanding the needs of spin-offs and partners who we are offering our products too. We proposed a structured approach to document what each workgroup has built or made and what they could offer to their partners. We talked about the specific offerings that each Workgroup can offer to the ecosystem and we suggested forming a task force to streamline the process and the group will have a discussion on the next steps for outreach based on the compiled information.
PROJECTS AND COLLABORATION STRATEGIES We noted that there are a number of ongoing collaborations, and we decided to actively promote collaboration through targeted outreach, and during the meeting, we outlined the projects each workgroup is involved in, along with their current partnerships.
Tevo shared his perspective on the role of his workgroups, emphasizing that it's not just about offering tools or seeking direct collaborations with spin-offs. Instead, he sees value in co-developing experimental approaches to decentralization — an iterative process that adapts to emerging needs. He noted in the chat, “I still find my work to be relevant for improving decentralized autonomy and governance... but it’s unclear if SNET still pursues this path openly.” Drawing on past experience, he referenced the Catalyst Governance Guild’s early involvement in the Ambassador Program as an example of this experimental mindset, where the goal wasn’t to push fixed solutions but to stay responsive and adaptive. Effiom added to this by pointing out that beyond tools, the real asset lies in the skills and capabilities people bring to the table.
We noted that if any of the spin-offs start thinking about launching a product, we’d be there to support them.
Peter highlighted the alignment of various spin-offs with decentralization and the significance of community involvement (He noted that this shared foundation is encouraging, but also pointed out that each spin-off may have its own approach, so alignment isn’t guaranteed). The meeting wrapped up with reminders for Governance and Town-hall calls, alongside an invitation for participants to enter their workgroup information into the spreadsheet.
Kizzy propose that REJUVE could have have a project showcase of their Rejuve app for live testing in the next AI sandbox call coming up this Thursday.
[rationale] This could help in onboarding new members.
topics covered: BGI Nexus, Collaboration, spin-offs, research, experiment, decentralized governance, Rejuve, tooling, Treasury, recordkeeping
emotions: Organised, Discursive, Collaborative, Resourceful, forward-looking, Conclusive
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], CallyFromAuron, CollyPride, PeterE, Sucre n Spice, LadyTempestt, UKnowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake, Effiom, barnabas
Purpose: Regular monthly meeting of the AI Ethics Workgroup
Working Docs:
Main topic of the meeting was the overall negative effects of low token price on the work of the group.
We went through our GitHub Board https://github.com/orgs/SingularityNet-Ambassador-Program/projects/1/views/2, starting with issues "In Progress", and then "To Do".
Many of the In Progress tasks are for transcription of research interviews, and are likely to be completed soon. However, due to low token price, we agreed that we will hold off from paying them for now, as this would use up all of our Q2 2025 budget (because budgets were calculated at $0.30, and token price is currently $0.16). Vani has DMed all those working on transcription, and they are all OK with waiting for payment.
We noted that technically, the WG went over budget at the end of Q1, due to an unexpected further price drop on the day we were paying out outstanding tasks. Vani has discussed this with Tevo in the Treasury Discord channel, arguing that when token price is falling, it matters less which Quarter a task was funded in, because a WG might need to dip into its reserves in order to pay for tasks from times when token price was higher. So when assessing if a WG is "in the red", we should look at the WG's cumulative budget, including any reserves - which means that this WG isn't over budget overall, if we count its reserves and its Q2 2025 allocation.
RE: outstanding tasks from previous Quarters, we noted that due to the nature of this WG, tasks have often involved a steep learning curve (such as interviewing), so it's understandable that people have taken considerably longer than expected to complete their work. Unless we decide in future to pay tasks in advance if token price is high, even if the task is not completed yet, there's little that can be done to mitigate this - we need to allow people time to learn and to get to grips with complex tasks. Nevertheless, we agreed that we do need to close interviewing and survey-sharing tasks from Q4 that are still outstanding.
(We briefly discussed the idea of either paying core tasks in advance, if we know they will definitely be done, or converting the money for them to a stablecoin - but we didn't draw a conclusion on this. We will raise it in the forthcoming Governance WG session on responses to low token price.)
We then decided which as-yet-unpaid tasks from Q1 2025 will be paid as soon as the new allocation for Q2 is added to the Treasury dashboard, and which will have to wait.
We noted that we need to do some fairly drastic budget fitting for Q2 due to low token price, so we agreed on where those cuts will be made - see the fitted Q2 budget in https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vLC4ZIHO3WN-Ah9XwehRmbwLZAeePsxxYQXmLiiJLnQ/edit?usp=sharing
We ended with a mention of the current BGI Nexus funding round, for proposals using AI for social good. There are 5 proposals by people from the Ambassador Program, so we encouraged people to vote. We noted that they are using an interesting "pairwise voting" process, where voters are presented with randomised pairs of proposals and must select their favourite of the 2.
At our May meeting, we will reassess whether we are able to pay transcription tasks yet (although if token price rises significantly before then, the WG admin team could decide to pay them then).
[rationale] In order for it to be "safe" to pay out, we're ideally looking for a price at or above the $0.30 at which the Q2 2025 budget was calculated.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
We agreed that Vani will wait to be paid as co-chair for Q1 2025 until / unless token price goes up; but that Clement's pay for managing the AI Ethics forum in Q1 will be paid at the next payday.
[rationale] Clement's pay is a relatively small amount ($80) so we can afford to pay it without jeopardising the Q2 budget.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Budget-fitting: we agreed that for Q2 2025, all the admin roles will be allocated less budget; documentation for the 3 meetings in Q2 will be folded in to the co-chair role and done by Vani, so there is no additional cost for that; and we will try to preserve at least some transcription work and some transcript-checking.
If token price does rise significantly, we will aim to also do some new interviews.
If by the time of our May meeting, token price is still below $0.20, then we will likely need to make even more cuts, as the proposed fitted budget assumes an exchange rate of $0.20
[rationale] We see the collecting and processing of research data as a priority - so for now, our main focus will be on transcribing and finishing as many of the existing interviews as we can, so that we have some finished data to work with; and if token price goes up significantly, we will add new interviews.
[opposing] No-one is entirely happy about these cuts, but needs must.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Colleen, in her role as community organiser, will be organising a community discussion session on "AI and emotion" as soon as possible
[rationale] This will be covered by the $100 left in the budget for the "community engagement" role. This is a "hot topic" which we see as valuable to discuss.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
[action] Vani to chase Onize about the documentation of the February meeting, which is not yet completed [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 14 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Vani to message Duke and Ese about closing their uncompleted interviewing tasks from Q4 2024, and Kenichi about his uncompleted Q4 survey-sharing task. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 28 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] By the end of the Quarter, Vani will use the insights from the recent plenary session for interviewers, and this Issue on matters arising from interviewing https://github.com/SingularityNet-Ambassador-Program/AI-Ethics-Workgroup/issues/117, to update the interviewers' training materials. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 30 June 2025 [status] todo
[action] Vani will look at the transcripts that have already been done, and assess whether the price we have agreed for checking and editing transcripts ($20 per interview) is what's needed, or whether it could be less (if transcribers have done good work, and not much checking is needed [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 30 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Vani and Clement (co-chair and co-chair mentee) will be meeting with the BGI Nexus team to discuss overall priorities and how to deal with low token price. This will be before the next WG meeting in May. [assignee] CallyFromAuron, Clement Umoh [due] 5 May 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: Q2 2025 budget, low token price, Budget cuts, Interview Transcription, Workgroup reserves, uncompleted tasks, payment in advance, BGI Nexus funding round, pairwise voting, AI and emotion
emotions: Brief, despondent due to low token price, Only a few of those present spoke
Meeting was cancelled
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], AshleyDawn, frosh, Gorga Siagian, UKnowZork, Zalfred, hogantuso
Purpose: Greetings after holidays - Updates from presentation series - LLM Showcase - Process Doc for certification program - token price impact and move forward
Working Docs:
Updates from presentation series
LLM Showcase
Process Doc for certification program
token price impact and move forward
The meeting started with Slate welcoming everyone and having a bit of topic discussion on holidays
Then showcased his work on the presentation that he is almost done with the module 2 and sent and showcased the links to the research work
Slate made some comments on the research work, to which gorga will make additions
Then zalfred chipped in that he is working on the presentation series module #3
After that Slate showcased the new version of gemini which is capable of doing good work and can be beneficial to use for educational purposes
Moving forward in the meeting the topic about the certification program process document started which was presented and inputs were taken and processes were explained
Two research task were distributed to Zalfred and Tuso
Zalfred raised a question on how to proceed with the token price fluctuation , on which Slate replied that we can take one project at a time to make things continue with flow without much impact on the budget
[action] Zalfred and Tuso to work upon the research task [assignee] Zalfred, hogantuso [due] 16 April 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Update the process doc [assignee] Slate [due] 16 April 2025 [status] in progress
topics covered: updates, Certification program, LLM development, newtools
emotions: Collaborative, Collaborative, Businesslike.
Type of meeting: Sandbox
Present: LordKizzy [facilitator], martinsoki [documenter], Gorga Siagian, Kateri, martinsoki, Santos, LordKizzy, AJ, advanceameyaw, CollyPride, Jeffrey, Shalini
Purpose: AI Sandbox Project Showcase
Working Docs:
Introduction of New member: The discussion began with a warm greeting from LordKizzy. Lordkizzy addressed the group regarding the Unix testers onboarding form, noting complications with the Unix team's email communication. He urged participants to complete the onboarding form for NuNet appliances. He also gave reminders about the ASI form shared in a previous town hall.
Intellectual Property and AI Ethics Discussion: The session, led by Lordkizzy, focused on the intersection of intellectual property and AI ethics, fostering open dialogue among participants. Key concepts associated with AI ethics—such as equity, fairness, and responsibility—were highlighted by Advance and Gorga. The group participated in a poll on whether AI models should hold intellectual property rights for their generated content, which yielded a range of differing opinions. Discussion on AI Ownership and Intellectual Property Rights: The conversation further explored the issue of AI ownership and intellectual property rights, some participants argued that such rights should belong to the humans who create and operate AI systems, emphasizing that AI lacks agency and intent. Gorga added that ownership implies emotional and social dimensions—qualities machines do not possess. Discussion on Credit Attribution in AI Development: The group expressed varied perspectives on the legal and ethical implications of AI-generated content. Advanceameyaw emphasized the importance of proper credit attribution in AI development. He noted that while AI models like ChatGPT often receive significant public attention, the contributions of the developers behind these technologies frequently go unrecognized. LordKizzy agreed that credit should be context-dependent, taking into account the roles of both developers and data owners in the success of AI systems. Discussion on AI Creation and Ownership: Lordkizzy led the conversation into the philosophical dimensions of AI as a product of human creation, with its roots traced back to divine creation. The ownership of AI outputs and the broader implications of AI’s existence in relation to God were debated. Lordkizzy acknowledged the complexity of the topic and invited further contributions from other participants in the conference room to continue the discussion. Exploring the Value of AI in Creative Works: Advanceameyaw articulated the distinction between human creativity and AI, suggesting that while human work is authentic, AI operates through simulation. CollyPride added that the embodiment of AI in robotics could help bridge the gap between synthetic and real-world applications. Lordkizzy supported the idea that AI-generated art should not be viewed as less valuable than human-created art, as both forms can contribute meaningfully to the creative landscape. Consequences of Assigning Rights to AI: The conversation, initiated by Lordkizzy, centered on the potential consequences of granting rights to AI, particularly in relation to intellectual property. Concerns were raised by a participant regarding the autonomy of AI without human oversight and the necessity of a universal reputation system to ensure accountability. Lordkizzy highlighted the challenge of determining responsibility for AI’s actions, stressing the need for clearer legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms.
[action] Members to submit their email to NuNet testers onboarding form [assignee] all [due] 17 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Lordkizzy to inform the NuNet team about updates to the onboarding form. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 17 April 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: NuNet appliance release update, Intellectual Property and AI Ethics
emotions: Welcoming, Interactive, Educative, Collaborative
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Duke [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], Duke, CJFrankie, esewilliams, Kateri, UKnowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake
Purpose: Bi-weekly meeting of the African Guild
Working Docs:
Introduction: The weekly meeting kicked off with a warm welcome from Duke. Before we got into the main agenda, he had a quick chat with us about the current drop in AGIX price and how we don’t have any reserves to fall back on at the moment. We also went over the summary notes from the last meeting, it was great but a few corrections were spotted and sorted out.
Budget and Budgeting: Duke shared that our budget has been approved, but the AGIX price drop is becoming a real concern. He mentioned that last quarter we got 9,500 AGIX, which was around 5,220 USD and because of the token price, we’re working with just 2,850 USD this quarter at the same 9,500 AGIX, noting that it’s way below what we were hoping for.
Budget Discussion: We had a quick discussion on how to move forward this quarter with the current AGIX market price. Duke mentioned that we’re already on biweekly meetings, which aren’t as effective as weekly ones. Monthly meetings were also mentioned but was not considered
CJ brought up a suggestion from the Writer Workgroup. He shared that they’ve started paying in AGIX instead of USD and have cut out some of the more interesting and interactive tasks to stay within budget. Duke acknowledged it as a good idea, but also pointed out that this method pushes the risk of price fluctuations onto individuals.
Pending Tasks: Duke also reminded us that we still have some unpaid tasks from Q1 that, we initially agreed to hold off on payments until AGIX went back up, but here we are in a new quarter, and the token price is still down. If we decide to pay out now, it’ll eat way into out Q2 budget
We suggested four possible options to handle this:
Pay all pending tasks now and work with whatever is left.
Pay only half of the amount owed.
Pay the pending tasks in USD and new ones in AGIX.
Pay out everything in AGIX.
Duke stressed the need for some quick math and budget readjustments. To move forward, an urgent focus group meeting will be held, and it’s open to anyone interested in being part of the discussion.
[action] Host a focus group meeting to decide how to settle pending Q1 tasks and do the necessary readjustments. [assignee] all [due] 24 April 2025 [status] in progress
topics covered: Q2 Budget decision , Collaboration, Documentation, Ambassador program, community manager, Pending rewards , Budget
emotions: Collaborative, Businesslike.
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Ayo [facilitator], martinsoki [documenter], kareem, kenichi, Gorga Siagian, Eric Davies, Kateri, advanceameyaw, UknowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake, SubZero, CJFrankie, photogee, Malik, PeterE, esewilliams, Max Milez, LordKizzy, Udoma Obu
Purpose: Marketing Guild weekly meeting
Working Docs:
Ayo kicked off the Marketing Guild call, welcoming attendees. Noticing the low turnout, he considered holding off a bit to see if more members would join. He encouraged everyone to show up a little earlier for future meetings.
Review of Action Items and Governance Document Discussion: Ayo led a review of the action items from the previous meeting, confirming that while some tasks had been completed, others remained outstanding. LordKizzy noted that there had been no response to a proposed call with representatives from the writers and marketing groups. Ayo emphasized the importance of reviewing the governance document and encouraged all present members to actively participate in the discussion.
Attendance Policy Discussion: Ayo brought up concerns regarding the attendance policy, particularly the rule imposing penalties on members who miss four consecutive meetings. Lordkizzy clarified that core members are expected to attend and engage actively, with consequences for missing more than two meetings within a single month. Peter questioned the significance of the distinction between consecutive and monthly absences, suggesting that the proposed penalties might need reconsideration.
Governance Discussions and Attendance Metrics: Ayo initiated a conversation around the governance documents, suggesting that if consensus couldn’t be reached, a dedicated focus group could be formed to conduct a thorough review. Photogee raised concerns about using attendance as a primary performance metric, arguing that it doesn’t necessarily reflect the value or impact of members' contributions. Ayo acknowledged the difficulties in the current decision-making process and invited suggestions on how to enhance member commitment and encourage more consistent feedback. Kenichi emphasized the importance of developing a living governance document—one that evolves alongside the guild’s goals and incorporates community input through tools like Discord polls. He proposed that any modifications to the document be put to a vote, ensuring transparency and collaborative decision-making. Ayo raised the question of whether to move forward with the current version or integrate suggested changes, stressing the need for clarity in how such decisions are made. Ayo spoke on the importance of commitment within the Marketing Guild, emphasizing that the guild’s vitality depends on consistent, active participation—not just maintaining a channel. He noted the lack of recent discussion around the Governance Document and proposed three potential paths forward: moving ahead with the current version, continuing broader discussions, or forming a focus group for deeper evaluation. Ayo also addressed concerns related to payment decisions, highlighting their possible influence on member performance and engagement. Ayo highlighted how late arrivals disrupt meeting flow and urged members to inform the group in advance if they’re unable to attend. Lordkizzy echoed the importance of regular meetings for maintaining accountability, noting that they foster direct communication and help clarify each member’s level of commitment. He also observed that past efforts to engage members outside of scheduled meetings had proven less effective. Kenichi raised concerns about the current governance process and proposed improvements to the voting documentation, suggesting Discord as a platform for better tracking and transparency. Ayo welcomed the suggestions and reiterated the importance of punctuality to ensure productive discussions during meetings. He also emphasized the value of gathering input from members who are unable to attend, to ensure broader participation in decision-making. Lordkizzy opened a discussion on Peter’s document, emphasizing its importance and the need to cover key topics such as attendance policies and budget planning. He presented a spreadsheet detailing current collaborations and encouraged members to contribute ideas to strengthen marketing efforts. Kenichi recommended raising awareness for guild projects and proposed the creation of dedicated funding pools to support targeted initiatives.
[action] LordKizzy to reach out to kenichi regarding the Zealy initiative allocation for Writers WG [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 4 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Eric Davies to provide clarity on the options for the Discord bot in the next meeting. [assignee] Eric Davies [due] 4 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Ayo to share the governance document for review in the next meeting. [assignee] Ayo [due] 18 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Kenichi to share a document related to event role and playbook for hosting Twitter spaces in the next meeting. [assignee] kenichi [due] 18 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Lordkizzy to add suggestions to the collaboration document shared in the chat. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 18 April 2025 [status] todo
topics covered: Governance document, Proposals
emotions: informative, insightful, Collaborative
Media link: