Week 13
Mon 24th Mar - Sun 30th Mar 2025
Monday 24th March 2025
Treasury Automation WG
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Tevo [facilitator], Effiom, Tevo [documenter], onize, André, Tevo, Jeffrey Ndarake, PeterE, Effiom
Purpose: We develop the Treasury System
Meeting video: Link
Miro board: Link
Other media: Link
Agenda item 1 - Update on Development Progress - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
Tool Development - Treasury System Updates - March 2025
Tevo’s Dework Updates(https://app.dework.xyz/catalyst-swarm/treasury-guild-41007?taskId=fdf4fa59-6519-48fa-b417-52965f7465b2)
Andre’s Dework Updates(https://app.dework.xyz/catalyst-swarm/treasury-guild-41007?taskId=15684466-919e-40ae-9d8e-c8a300be3271)
Short Development Update Video
Agenda item 2 - Plan Ambassador program Quarter 2 Development Roadmap - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
Planning Next Quarter & Developing the Roadmap
What do we deliver, and who does what? Included deliverables on the Miro Board Schedule
Quarter 2 Calender Schedule
Automation WG Q2 Budget Sheet
How do we use our leftover reserves?
Decision Items:
Next Session 22.04.25 at 10:00 AM UTC
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Estimating 2nd session for 10.05.25 at 10:00 AM UTC
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Calculate and maintain Core Budget Lines in Workgroup Reserves. For the rest of the Budget Rewards, come up with a new incentivised distribution model
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Agenda item 3 - Custom Calender with R&D Guild - [carry over]
Discussion Points:
How would we track time spent on development?
Create GitHub for SNET Event scheduling and Notification system
Proposal for R&D Guild - Event Scheduling and Notification System
Custom Calendar Research is rewarded from the Process Guild budget
What Tech Stack should we use?
If Supabase is used it will be very easy to integrate with rest of the tools. Authentications are also provided by Supabase
We are using Postgres Database
Decision Items:
We decided to include code in the Repo Level and Record time on GitHub
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Developer writes time spent on his own as it will be interesting to see how they recognize the work that needs to be done
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We agreed to use the Treasury Automation WG Project Board (ORG Level)
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Continue using Treasury Automation WG for coordinating tech stack and deliverables
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Review Calendar Progress in Future Treasury Automation WG [status] todo
[action] Invite Developer to the GitHub Repo and Project Board [status] todo
Agenda item 4 - Workgroup Management - Distribution of action items - [resolved]
Discussion Points:
Assigning meeting summarizer and reviewer for 24.03.2025
How we manage Meeting Summaries
Meeting Summary Template
Draft Q2 Report for next session?
Decision Items:
We start drafting the Q2 Report from the next session
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Effiom will draft the meeting summary and upload it to the summary tool. [assignee] Effiom [status] done
[action] Tevo will review and publish the Meeting Summary on Discord [assignee] Tevo [status] done
[action] Effiom to help lead with the drafting of the Q2 Report [assignee] Effiom [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Miro Board, Development, Updates, Workgroup management, Q2 budget, Custom Calender, Project Management, R&D guild
Tuesday 25th March 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron, LordKizzy, LadyTempestt, AshleyDawn, Évéline Trinite, UknowZork
Purpose: regular weekly GovWG meeting
Working Docs:
Narrative:
RESOLVING OBJECTIONS? Most of the objections are Tevo's; so because he was unable to be at this meeting, we were unable to try to resolve them.
We looked at the one other objection (by Vani, objecting to Writers' WG on the grounds of over-centralisation). Mikasa gave a defence saying that they have already planned to address the problem - but as this is exactly what was said last time the issue arose, Vani preferred not to resolve the objection, but to let it go to the consent process. So Writers' WG will address this in their "response" doc.
There were no other objections by anyone other than Tevo.
CAN WE RULE ANY OBJECTIONS INVALID? We discussed whether we, as Governance WG, can rule any of the objections as "invalid", as was done in previous rounds. For example, the objection to African Guild that they pay $25 per meeting for facilitation when the objector believes there should be a standard fee of $20 across the Program - we noted that there is no longer any agreed, enforcable "standard fee", and that trying to impose one retroactively could infringe on the idea of workgroup autonomy, so this could therefore be considered an invalid objection. However, since Tevo isn't able to be here to discuss it, perhaps we should not rule out any objections as "invalid", but should let all the objections go to the 2nd consent round - if individuals feel an objection is not valid, they will select "objection has been addressed or is not an issue". This question will be looked at again in Thursday's meeting to confirm that we do not plan to rule any onbjection "invalid" at this stage.
ARE OBJECTIONS INVALID IF THEY WERE NOT SUBMITTED IN THE "WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION" FIELD? We noted that some of the objections in the responses sheet were actually submitted in the "What would need to change?" field, so it's not 100% clear that they are objections as such. (Example - the objection mentioned above, about African Guild paying $25 for documentation.) However, it is pretty clear from context that they are intended as objections.
SEPARATE THE INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS OUT? The draft 2nd-round consent form created by Vani separates each individual objection (even if it's part of a set of several points that were made by the same person), and asks people to agree / disagree with each one separately.
LordKizzy suggested that instead, we should give all the objections to a particular WG together, and ask people "In the light of the above, do you consent or object to this WG's budget?" This might make the consenting process easier; but it might also mean that if someone only agrees with one of the objections, we won't know which one. This question will be looked at again in Thursday's meeting.
WHAT DOES "80/20" MEAN IN PRACTICE? We noted that it's not completely clear what the 80/20% rule means in this context. First - do abstentions count towards the total "number of people who took part"? Is it "80%/20% including abstentions" or not? Second - to pass, does a WG need at least 80% of respondents saying "this has been resolved, or is not an issue", or fewer than 20% saying "this is still a problem"? This question will be looked at again in Thursday's meeting.
WHAT HAPPENS IF A WG'S BUDGET DOESN'T PASS? We realised that we have not definitely confirmed what the approach is this round. Will that be it - no budget? Or will there be any further attempts to resolve the situation? This question will be looked at again in Thursday's meeting
Discussion Points:
Running through the outstanding objections to see if there were any we could resolve
Can we, in a Governance meeting, deem a particular objection invalid?
Should the 2nd round consent form list each objection separately, or should we consolidate them?
What does the 80/20% rule mean in practice in this context?
Decision Items:
We agreed that in Thursday's meeting, we need further discussion of the following:
Can we, in a Governance meeting, deem a particular objection invalid?
Should the 2nd round consent form list each objection separately, or should we consolidate them?
What does the 80/20% rule mean in practice in this context?
[rationale] These issues were raised in today's meeting, but we didn't have time to reac firm conclusions.
[effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup
Action Items:
[action] Everyone to think about the 3 issues that will be carried over to Thursday's meeting [assignee] all [due] 27 March 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: consent process, Writers' WG, centralisation, 80% / 20% rule, invalid objections, abstentions
emotions: thoughtful, inconclusive, knotty problems
Wednesday 26th March 2025
Education Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], Slate [documenter], AshleyDawn, Gorga Siagian, LordKizzy, Évéline Trinité, maxmilez, UKnowZork
Purpose: Consent Round Process- website update - Governance Series Update - Next Week
Working Docs:
In this meeting we discussed:
Consent Round Process
website update
Consent Round Process
Discussion Points:
Slate started off the meeting with a warm and a discussion around Linkedin and token price
Then discussion around the consent round process started on which Kizzy presented that Tevo was absent in the last governance call which caused a delay and the round is gonne shift to 80/20 mark
The next round will only have space for approving objections and not making more
The responses to concerns will be added in a unified response doc by the guild/ wg
Slate gave the website update on which he presented the site with the background which was approved and also the certification dashboard
the formatting is going to be improved along with the design of the navigation bar
Governance Series Update(Kizzy): There was a Talk with Vanessa about the budget allocation mentimeter for the workshop after the end of series Different governance scenarios will be presented
Action Items:
[action] Slate to work on the success criteria [assignee] Slate [due] 2 April 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Website update with domain [assignee] FranklynStein [due] 2 April 2025 [status] cancelled
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Updates, Consent, Less Attendance, Governance series, Consent process, AI for beginners
emotions: Collaborative
Research and Development Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: guillermolucero [facilitator], LordKizzy [documenter], LordKizzy, advanceameyaw, guillermolucero, Bandojayy, AshleyDawn, Jeffrey Ndarake
Purpose: R&D Updates and Discussions
Working Docs:
Agenda Items:
Welcoming new Members and Introduction
Review of last meeting summary Action Items
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance Dashboard, W3CD-Web3-Contributors-Dashboard, CSDB-Collaboration-Skills-Database, Social-Media-Dashboard, Reputation-System-using-SoulBound-Tokens-SBTs
MetaCoders Lab Discussion
AOB Open discussions
Project Showcase Preparation for R&D Guild
Discussion Points:
Review of last meeting summary Action Items: Lordkizzy went through the action items for the previous meeting and we had a brief introduction for new members
New proposal applications: Guillermo went over the proposal submissions. There were still two submissions (AI agent and a meeting scheduling system) after the extension but lordkizzy noted that he was working on a proposal and he would make a submission before the deadline.
R&D Guild Budget concern: We went through the budget concerns, guild members gave their response to this, while Guillermo documented the feedback. Advanceameyaw also addressed the status of the Collaboration SQL database, confirming the launch of a beta version and ongoing improvements.
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: Governance Dashboard: Guillermo emphasizing the inclusion of anonymity in their blueprint and the necessity for a structured roadmap for the project.
UPDATE STATUS ON DEVELOPMENT: CSDB-Collaboration-Skills-Database: Advanceameyaw outlined the testing process for community members and the need to finalize user-profiles and Discord logins
Project Showcase Preparation for R&D Guild members with AI Sandbox: Lordkizzy detailed the upcoming project showcase for the Collaboration Skill Database, emphasizing its features such as in-depth overview, live demonstrations and an exploration of real-world applications. Advance also mentioned that the session will cover challenges encountered during the project and improvements made, providing valuable insights for attendees.
Action Items:
[action] Lordkizzy to follow up on communication with the soft launch of the deployment of Legacy [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 26 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Advanceameyaw to write a short paragraph explaining the status of the Collaboration SQL database to Guillermo on Discord. [assignee] advanceameyaw [due] 26 March 2025 [status] todo
[action] Guillermo to prepare a written response regarding the concerns raised in the quarterly report. [assignee] guillermolucero [due] 26 March 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Nunet, CSDB, MeTTa Coder Lab, Team Collaboration , legacy project
emotions: Collaborative, informative, Understanding.
Strategy Guild
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Ayo [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], Ayo, UKnowZork, Clement Umoh, Kateri, Jeffrey Ndarake
Purpose: The monthly meeting of the Strategy Guild featuring discussions around budget, updates, and looking ahead!
Narrative:
Intro: The call opened with Ayo asking UknowZork how she’s been coping, especially since many of the guild meetings have now shifted to a bi-weekly schedule. He also asked if she’s been getting or taking up tasks. UknowZork shared that she’s been able to pick up small documentation tasks and is hopeful for more opportunities. Ayo encouraged her, noting that consistent participation and attending calls is the best approach. He asked if UknowZork attends AI Sandbox calls, as they’re a great space for learning and growth. Ayo mentioned that the meeting would proceed as planned, though it might be shorter due to fewer attendees. He asked everyone to wait a couple of minutes while he prepared the updates. There was a light moment when Ayo joked about mixing up who’s based where, sharing how he recently visited Uyo and Calabar but wasn’t sure who from the team lived there. Finally, Ayo said he would share the agenda on screen and suggested using the last meeting’s agenda summary as a base since no new notes had been posted yet.
Q2 Updates / Workshop / approach / Research & May TownHall Presentation
Ayo shared details about the survey form and shared that since they hadn’t been getting much feedback before, the team had decided to change their strategy. Instead of trying to get input during the guild meetings or workshops, like they had originally planned, they’re now shifting to a more direct approach. The plan is to reach out to people individually with specific questions, gather their responses, analyze the data, and then send back the results. He explained that the challenge right now is figuring out exactly who to contact in each guild. For example, in the African Guild, they need to identify three reliable members—people who still show up consistently for calls, even with the token price drop. This way, they can be sure they’ll get the responses they need.
Ayo also gave an update on the Q2 research, noting that it’s a continuation of the Q1 work. They’re partnering with Deep Funding and have already compiled a list of documents that he had previously shared with Deep Funding. The main challenge has been figuring out which guild circles to focus on. At first, it seemed like the research was for the IT circle, then it looked like the Review circle, then Data Analytics, and finally Operations. Since Ayo wasn’t able to attend the April meeting, he mentioned it might be a good idea to attend the May one for more clarity. He also pointed out that for the Q3 budget, it’s already known that the token price has dropped, and there will be cuts to the budget for each workgroup or guild. For instance, Strata Guild is now set to receive $861, which is adjusted to 2,868 AGX tokens at the current rate of $0.3 per AGX. So, the budgets are definitely tighter. He expressed some uncertainty about the research project—whether it’s happening at all. With the end of May approaching and only a few weeks left in the quarter, time is running out. Clement added his thoughts, saying that this was the original vision—getting people who are active in the whole AI market space so they could collect more expansive data for fresh perspectives on the analysis. He also took a moment to appreciate the effort of the research team.
AOB: Ayo expressed some uncertainty about the research project—whether it’s happening at all. With the end of May approaching and only a few weeks left in the quarter, time is running out.
Jeffery brought up the next steps for the research, reminding Ayo that he had mentioned including him as part of the research team, but he hadn’t heard anything since. Ayo apologized for the communication gap, admitting he hadn’t been very active on Discord lately and hadn’t seen any clear details about including him as part of the research team. After reviewing past conversations, he didn’t find much concrete information and suggested there might have been a misunderstanding or missing context. In a lighthearted moment, Ayo even joked that if he had said Jeffery was on the research team, he must have been “really drunk,” as Jeffery isn’t a core member of the Guild.
To smooth things over, Ayo reassured him that he would double-check the meeting details and do a follow up with him. Kateri also mentioned she had some pending messages that hadn’t been addressed yet. Ayo apologized again and promised to get back to her after the call.
The meeting wrapped up with Ayo encouraging both Kateri and Jeffery to reach out so they could clarify things and move forward together.
Action Items:
[action] Ayo will reach out to Jeffery to provide context for the previous research discussion. [assignee] Ayo [due] 26 May 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Budget, Q1 research, SingularityNET AI Marketplace, Async unit, Research, Monthly meetings, Onboarding, GitHub, Threshold, Q2
emotions: insightful, Resourceful, informative, looking-ahead
Thursday 27th March 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], Kateri, CallyFromAuron [documenter], guillermolucero, CallyFromAuron, LordKizzy, LadyTempestt, AshleyDawn, Évéline Trinite, UknowZork, Kateri, PeterE, Clement Umoh, advanceameyaw, Alfred, martinsoki, Mikasa, Sucre n Spice, Jeffrey
Purpose: Weekly Open Governance meeting
Working Docs:
Narrative:
Peter reviewed the objections that were discussed in the last meeting, noting that some may need further discussion before moving to the consent process.
Guillermo talked about the importance of not delaying decisions because the objector is not present. Vani noted that we have already started moving with or without Tevo being present.
Peter highlighted the questions asked in the last meeting:
Whether to consolidate objections or keep them separate in the consent form?
Can we, in a governance meeting, deem a particular objection invalid ?
Lordkizzy presented that André has withdrawn his objection to AI Sandbox/Thnk Tank. We agreed to ask André to add a note in the Responses spreadsheet tp say this, and he did so during the meeting.
Vani asked what we plan to do if a workgroup doesn’t get the required 80% consent in the 2nd round. We agreed that the workgroup should be able to continue to try to reach a resolution, rather than simply having no budget for Q2. Lord kizzy noted that we should track the objections to know which has been addressed and which has not.
Guillermo spoke that we shouldn’t consolidate all the objections on a WG in the form, as it will make it difficult to be clear what someone is actually objecting to Lord kizzy suggested that we should add a question in the form that asks "Overall, do you consent to this WG's budget?" and then ask which, if any, of the objections from round 1 are still a concern. This would allow people to indicate if certain objections had not been satisfactorily addressed, even if on balance they consent to the WG's budget overall.
There was a brief discussion on workgroup autonomy, in relation to the objection to African Guild's charging $25 for facilitation when the objector felt that $20 was standard. Many felt that such objections interfered with workgroup autonomy; and it was noted that there is not actually any agreed "standard" price. Nevertheless, we agreed not to ruke the objection as invalid, but to let it go to the 2nd-round consent process.
Clement raised concerns about the objection to African Guild in relation to reward distribution; he questioned whether it is true that rewards were being allocated solely based on meeting attendance rather than task performance and noted that token price fluctuations were limiting workgroup innovation.
Peter expressed caution about spending reserves when token prices are low, the idea of using reserves to support workgroup functions during downturns was tabled for another discussion.
We discussed exactly what the "80-20% rule" means, and how we calculate whether a WG has passed the threshold - do they need 80% consent or above 80%? or is it better to look at the threshold as "no more than 20% objection"? And 80%/20% of what? Is it all those who participated, or are abstainers not counted? See "Decisions" below.
Discussion Points:
Whether to list each objection separately in the consent form, or consolidate them.
How to prevent new objections from being raised in the 2nd consent round
What the 80%/20% rule means in practice - do WGs need more than 80% consent, or is it no more than 20% objections? The challenge of calculating percentages when some members abstain.
Decision Items:
We will ask objectors to review the shared documentation (WGs will each write a document addressing the objections they have received) before the 2nd consent round opens, and formally withdraw objections if they feel the issues have been resolved.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
The 2nd round consent form will ask people to consent, object or abstain to a Workgroup budget as a whole, before asking for their views on the individual objections from Round 1.
[rationale] Will be clearer, and will allow people to consent overall, even if they feel that some of the objections are still a concern.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We will keep the different objections separate, and ask people which ones, if any, they think are a problem.
[rationale] This will enable us to identify which objections need to be discussed further (in general terms, rather than in relation to whether or not a WG gets its budget) once the consent process is over.
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
We are not going to rule any objections invalid
[rationale] This meeting is perhaps not well-attended enough to give a real consensus that an objection should be overruled. It would be better to let them all go through the 2nd consent round and see which ones Core Contributors agree are an issue.
The 80-20% rule means a Workgroup will pass unless more than 20% of those taking part object. As always, the “number taking part” excludes abstainers
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Action Items:
[action] Vani will modify the Round 2 consent form to include “consent” “object” and “abstain” on the budget as a whole, plus a question on which, if any, outstanding objections the person thinks are still a problem. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 1 April 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: consent process, Reserves, workgroup autonomy, invalid objections, African guild, consent form design, 80%/20% rule, abstentions
emotions: thoughtful, satisfying, decisive
AI Sandbox/Think-tank
Type of meeting: Sandbox
Present: osmium [facilitator], martinsoki [documenter], Gorga Siagian, Kateri, osmium, advanceameyaw, Jeffrey Ndarake, martinsoki, UknowZork, Éveline Trinité, Alfred Itodole, Santos, LordKizzy
Purpose: AI tools and projects: ASI-1 mini LLM
In this meeting we discussed:
Meeting Coordination and Introduction: The meeting kicked off with LordKizzy, focusing on the exploration of AI tools and projects.
LordKizzy mentioned that he received the last meeting documentation from Santos but found some errors. He provided feedback for corrections and is hopeful that the necessary adjustments will be made. LordKizzy gave a brief explanation on the AI Sandbox/Think-tank WG to the new members.
Discussion on ASI LLM: Osmium provided insights into the ASI LLM, the first Web3 native LLM designed for agentic AI, optimized for complex interactions and autonomous decision-making. He explained its integration with the ASI Wallet for secure transactions and its advanced reasoning capabilities, which are expected to impact sectors like DeFi and supply chain management. Osmium detailed the process for integrating ASI into applications via a robust API, emphasizing the benefits of operating within a Web3 ecosystem, including enhanced security and anonymity. He also mentioned the potential for ASI's integration with decentralized networks and indicated that further instructions on API key generation would be provided in future sessions. Osmium led a discussion on the integration of AI governance tools into decentralized organizations, highlighting the importance of ethics and community participation. He raised concerns about the implications of solving complex mathematical problems, such as the P vs NP question, which could lead to significant security vulnerabilities. Advanceameyaw contributed by suggesting the exploration of general mathematical questions to test AI capabilities. Osmium highlighted the functionalities of modular agents and their integration with Llama 3 during the discussion. He introduced the upcoming ASA education program and emphasized the need for a pre-trained SEO to enhance search efficiency. The conversation also touched on the use of knowledge-based graphs for research and the potential of tools like perplexity over traditional search engines.
AI Sandbox Q2 roster and Documentation Policy: Lordkizzy discussed the Q2 roster created by Kateri. He also addressed documentation issues, stating that summaries from previous meetings were late and implementing a new policy that requires documentation to be submitted within 48 hours, or the task will be reassigned.
Q1 Reward Distribution: Lordkizzy addressed the Q1 reward distribution, noting the adjustments needed in their budget due to low token prices. Osmium pointed out that their WG has been operational despite previous inactivity and discussed the importance of deliverables in budget allocation. The team agreed to distribute rewards on Friday.
AI Sandbox Progress and Budget Planning: Lordkizzy urged team members to consent to the AI Sandbox so that we can make through the round. Gorga proposed a budget proposal for the BGI Nexus round, but Lordkizzy pointed out that the application round had ended. The discussion also touched on the possibility of proposing in the next defunding round 5.
AI Sandbox Task Assignments and Mentorship: Alfred Itodole asked if he could request tasks and receive mentorship after attending three meetings. Lordkizzy stated that he would need to confirm Alfred's attendance before proceeding with the tag assignment. Osmium mentioned that Alfred's name could be added to the list for documentation tasks.
Action Items:
[action] Advanceameyaw and AJ to prepare for the project showcase session scheduled for next week. [assignee] advanceameyaw, AJ [due] 3 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Kateri to document the next week's meeting as confirmed during the discussion. [assignee] Kateri [due] 3 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Lordkizzy to ensure that documentation for meetings is submitted within 48 hours moving forward. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 3 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Vasu to discuss the budget allocation for Q2 with Lordkizzy to address financial constraints. [assignee] osmium, LordKizzy [due] 4 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Lordkizzy to confirm the attendance of Alfred Itodole for the tag assignment. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 3 April 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Q1 budget, Budget Allocation, Project Showcase, ASI LLM, Q2 2025 budget, Documentation, Workgroup Discord tag, Mentoring
emotions: Welcoming, Interactive, Informative, Understanding.
WG Sync Call
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], CallyFromAuron [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, guillermolucero, Sucre n Spice, UKnowZork, osmium, Évéline Trinité
Purpose: Monthly call for all Workgroups to discuss Program-wide issues
Agenda Items:
BGI Nexus survey
End of Year Report
Collaborations with spinoffs and partners
Meeting attendance/next WG Sync call
Discussion:
The meeting started small, although a few more people drifted in later.
BGI NEXUS SURVEY We briefly noted that the BGI Nexus survey into attitudes to AI Ethics is ongoing - AI Ethics WG members have been promoting it to their friends and contects, but we should also invite Ambassador Program members to complete it too. Link was shared, and we agreed to promote it on Ambassador Discord channels; but we agreed that we'll check with BGI Nexus before promoting it more widely via general sNET channels, in case they want to take a more targeted approach at this stage.
END OF YEAR REPORT As agreed in the last WG Sync call, Vani has done a final proofread, and it is almost ready to go. Guillermo will add a bit of detail on LatAm events later today, then it will be published probably tomorrow.
COLLABORATIONS WITH SPINOFFS AND PARTNERS We discussed how to progress this issue, which was discussed in the last WG sync call (particularly in the light of low token price - is there any way that collabs might support the Ambassador Program financially?) Decided the first step is to collate info on how different WGs are already working with spinoffs and partners - for example
we already translate the ecosystem monthly writeup
we had hackathon collab with fetch
AI Sandbox/ThinkTank has been working with NuNet
NuNet and BGI Nexus have attended Town Halls
LatAm and Onboarding are working with different spinoffs
Peter will create and share a spreadsheet and ask all WGs to add any collaborative work they are currently doing Then when we have this information, we can start writing a strategy for future efforts, covering marketing, LatAm, African, R&D, Onboarding, Education, and more.
MEETING ATTENDANCE and NEXT WG SYNC CALL This meeting was quite poorly attended. We felt that perhaps people would be more likely to attend if there's a specific topic for discussion, and particularly if it is something that clearly involves all WGs, such as "WG collaborations with spinoffs and partners". So we'll collect the info on what WGs are already doing, and hold an additional call on Monday 7th April to focus on this. We se;ected a later time (16:00 UTC) as the current time of 11:00 UTC might be excluding some people.
Decision Items:
We'll have an additional WG Sync Call on Mon 7th April, 16:00 UTC, specifically focusing on WG collaborations with spinoffs and partners
[rationale] 1) because this call was poorly attended
because we felt that a more specific agenda topic might encourage people to attend
because the current time of 11 am UTC might be too early
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Action Items:
[action] Peter to create and share a spreadsheet asking WGs and guilds to list any collaborative work they are already doing with spinoffs and partners [assignee] PeterE [due] 1 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Peter will publish the End of Year Report 2024 in the next few days [assignee] PeterE [due] 31 March 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: BGI Nexus, AI Ethics survey, Collaboration, partners, spin-offs, End of Year Report 2024, timezone exclusion
emotions: quiet, low attendance, useful, slow start
Friday 28th March 2025
Marketing Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: LordKizzy [facilitator], martinsoki [documenter], kareem, kenichi, Gorga Siagian, Eric Davies, Kateri, advanceameyaw, UknowZork, Jeffrey Ndarake, SubZero, Mikasa, hogantuso, CJFrankie, photogee, Malik, PeterE, esewilliams, Alfred Itodole, Éveline Trinité, Max Milez, osmium
Purpose: Marketing Guild weekly meeting
Working Docs:
Discussion Points:
The meeting opened with LordKizzy confirming the agenda and addressing the adoption of the previous meeting note made by Martinsoki. Action items were outlined.
Discussion on Graphics Team Structure: Kareem noted differences between his and Gorga’s previous communications and the current proposal, urging a clear budget allocation to simplify design tasks. Gorga confirmed that the focus is on graphic design for marketing.
Updates on Podcast Initiatives: Photogee explained that Peter had initially set a date for the podcast recording but was unable to attend, so the recording was rescheduled for next week.
AI Event Update: CJfrankie gave a breakdown on the AI event that took place at Abeokuta Ogun State, discussing the benefits and challenges of AI, particularly in security applications. He highlighted the high costs associated with AI technology and emphasized the need to view AI as a supportive tool rather than a job threat. CJfrankie also mentioned networking opportunities, although he did not have a chance to onboard new members to SingularityNet due to lack of time.
Updates on Project Collaborations and Guild Activities: LordKizzy asked Malik what's been your progress this month? Malik responds to LordKizzy that there is no new updates or collaborations from the guilds he oversees, such as the education and gamers guilds and part of that is kind of handled by the core members.
A.O.B: Advanceameyaw shared updates regarding brand guidelines and marketing initiatives, noting that he had not fully communicated these due to time constraints. He highlighted the importance of collaboration with the African Guild and mentioned the upcoming Ubuntu and AI conference, emphasizing the need for improved marketing support compared to last year. Lordkizzy discussed the graphics team's role in disseminating information rather than creating content, emphasizing the need for clarity on collaboration from the African side. Mikasa Williams updated the group on her return to work and confirmed that the social media spotlight would be scheduled for release. Additionally, Lordkizzy mentioned the ongoing budget management process and the need for further consent from the team. Singularity Scavenger Hunt: Eric Davies introduced the Singularity Scavenger Hunt, which aims to enhance user engagement with the SingularityNet platform through gamified challenges. Participants will solve cryptograms, complete AI-related tasks, and answer trivia questions to familiarize themselves with the ecosystem. The initiative is expected to boost user onboarding and retention while spreading awareness of SingularityNet's offerings. Lordkizzy addressed the allocation tool and the delay in Zealy sprints, seeking clarity on operations and the need for prioritization. Photogee discussed the operational aspects of initiatives, while Eric Davies elaborated on the stress associated with moderation and content management tasks. The conversation underscored the importance of documenting time spent on tasks for proper allocation.
Action Items:
[action] All members to read the governance documents and provide comments before the next meeting. [assignee] members [due] 4 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Jeffrey to put a comment in the Marketing Guild channel on Discord to help us identify him. [assignee] Jeffrey [due] 4 April 2025 [status] todo
[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
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Q2 2025 budget, Initiatives, Community podcast update, Budget Allocation, Zealy sprints , Singularity Scavenger Hunt
emotions: informative, insightful, Satisfaction
Saturday 29th March 2025
Gamers Guild
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Slate [facilitator], devon [documenter], Malik, rebel, LordKizzy, SubZero, sirxalfred, AshleyDawn, Slate
Purpose: Demonstrate a live, in‑game link to the Ambassador‑Program Budget Planner, discuss severe budget constraints and a revised meeting cadence, and collect progress updates from active workgroup and map‑creators.
Working Docs:
Discussion Points:
Live Budget‑Planner UI by Slate:
Demo included a scrolling ambassador program budget planner GUI in Roblox showing that refreshes every few seconds; edits in the google sheet (e.g., Treasury Guild request changed from $6013 to $7000) appeared in‑game in real time.
Next steps: add quarter tabs, colour‑coded thresholds, and deliver a call with Treasury Guild (Kizzy mentor) once fully polished.
LLM Knowledge‑Base Concept by Slate:
Proposed hosting a private LLM containing step‑by‑step build guides, UI templates, and common troubleshooting so creators can self‑serve without waiting for live help.
Budget Outlook & Cadence Change
Q2 allocation: 7 000 AGIX ≈ $1540 at today’s $0.22 price.
To stay solvent, meeting‑related line items (hosting, facilitation, docs, publicity, gaming rewards) will be cut roughly in half by switching from bi‑weekly to monthly guild meetings (three per quarter).
Revised monthly costs save ≈ $540, letting the guild operate within $1540
Asset‑creation payouts remain paused except five one‑per‑person this month.
Writers Work Group & Admin Block by Kizzy:
Admin Block: added reception screens, meeting rooms, improved stairs, 20+ NPCs. Will integrate a FAQ dialogue system and possibly a payment/document‑submission feature.
Writers WG Building: added onboarding room, social‑media offices, cafeteria, study room, and scrolling Twitter dashboards; proposes MCQ entry test and rotating book icons.
Received help debugging object spin and agreed to anchor icons & save property changes.
Asset‑Creation Task
Reopened for five submissions; creators may post short videos for voting in the guild channel.
Decision Items:
Meeting frequency changed to monthly (next on 26 April) until AGIX recovers
[rationale] Low Agix price
Action Items:
[action] Map Creators [assignee] Gorga Siagian, Kateri [due] 26 April 2025 [status] in progress
[action] Department Creation - Writers Workgroup [assignee] LordKizzy, devon [due] 26 April 2025 [status] todo
[action] Department Creation - RnD Guild [assignee] SubZero, rebel [due] 26 April 2025 [status] todo
Game Rules:
No games played
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Roblox, private LLM, Knowledge base, budget planner, API integration, asset creation, meeting frequency, low token price
emotions: Collaborative, informative
games played: nogameplayed
Last updated