Week 20

Mon 12th May - Sun 18th May 2025

Monday 12th May 2025

AI Ethics WG

  • Type of meeting: Monthly

  • Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], LadyTempestt [documenter], CallyFromAuron, LadyTempestt, Sucre n Spice, esewilliams, PeterE, CollyPride, Peegee, Clement Umoh, Jeffrey Ndarake, advanceameyaw, AshleyDawn, EstherG, Apostolis, UKnowZork

  • Purpose: Regular WG meeting

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

We started by going through tasks “in progress” on Github;

  • We gave a quick nudge to people still on meeting documentation tasks from last quarter. We might have to record the 3rd February meeting notes as “no summary” if it's not there on the summary tool(Vani will check this out).

  • Learnings from Q3 & Q4 Interviews: Vani will use insights from this session to improve our training materials and get it ready by our next meeting in June.

  • WG Sync Calls: We will raise a discussion on payments in advance for tasks yet to be done at the call today.

  • Transcription tasks: We have asked that people assigned get started on their respective interviews transcription if they haven’t done so now that the token price is looking good, and give updates on their GitHub issues. One thing we have learned here is that we should have asked people to have them done even when the token price was down so that they could get paid whenever token price looks good because now we are going to have make use of that faith we did not have and hope that the token price doesn't crash down while people are getting transcriptions done. In the long run, we should try normalizing anonymised interviews to ease our workflow when we transcribe them from the recordings.

  • Q2 2025 Budget update: Price is up, and anything that has to do with research and data collection is our priority; what do we do? Aside from paying for Q1 transcription tasks(all 15 of them), should we revert to our original budget for admin roles? And should we pay for any of the admin tasks now? Colleen suggested that we revert to the original budget of 0.30 for admin roles in addition to extra interviews; Vani pointed out that we are slightly over the budget overall and that if we pay out most things as it is now, then we won't have anything extra if the token gets back quite high. Love was of the opinion that we do not top up the admin roles and instead use this chance to clear up at least half of the carried-over payment(specifically the co-chair role) from last quarter that is just sitting there before doing more interviews if possible and the rest of it. Vani agreed that keeping things for too long in the background is bad practice but that she would prefer we use that money we want to subsidize for the co-chair role payment from last quarter for more interviews instead. She also said that everything depends on token price in the next few weeks and our priority is still getting transcription tasks paid and the editing/checking of course and that once we are done paying for the ones on the board currently then we can think about what to do about the carried-over payment. She also suggested that the admins go back and discuss more on this and come up with a final solution. Peter pointed out that we should keep in mind that the co-chair role payment we are talking about was budgeted in Q1 2025 with a token price of 0.50. It is still an issue.

  • More Interviews: We asked people who are up for possible interviews depending on token price and budget to signify and we got a good number including people who didn't do interviews last time. We had PG, Grandi, Clement, Maximilez…etc. We are trying to get prepared.

  • AOB Colleen announced an event(community discussion) coming up next week(19th May at 14:00 UTC) where she will be representing us at, and invited us all to attend. The topic is AI Ethics and the ethics of achieving AI emotions and giving ASI emotions.

Decision Items:

  • We agreed to have the admins go back and discuss more on the budget dilemma we have and come up with a final solution.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani to bring the revamped version of our Interview training materials using the insights we got to our next meeting in June 2nd. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 2 June 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] LadyTempestt to check-in with Kenichi concerning his transcription task [assignee] kenichi [due] 2 June 2025 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: WG Sync call, Interview Transcription, AI Ethics Interviews, Q2 budget

  • emotions: Quiet, Deliberative, a bit dull

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Monthly

  • Present: PeterE [facilitator], LadyTempestt [documenter], CallyFromAuron, LadyTempestt, PeterE, Sucre n Spice, AshleyDawn, Andrew, Effiom, Apostolis, advanceameyaw, guillermolucero, UKnowZork

  • Purpose: Monthly WG Sync call

  • Media link: Link

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

  • The EOY report for last year(2024) is ready! Waiting for Writers WG to do the rest(get it published or something).

  • How do we address work quality in the ambassador program? We’ve noticed that it can be quite hard to give feedback and receive them if you are not involved with the WG/Guild. Should we try having 1-2 honest friends give genuine feedback moments once or twice a quarter in a WG ? Anonymous form? Trusted person- a confidante who’s anonymous too; ad-hoc one on one basis. Reflection in a section of the report? Decouple quality feedback from budgets?

Vani noted that in a way the anonymous form and the trusted person go hand in hand because just sending a form for people to fill out won't get much action whereas the trusted person can champion the whole thing by jumping on a call or something to bring up feedbacks they got anonymously and kind of encourage something to happen. In a sense, we do want some actions to follow most feedback we receive. Guillermo believes that taking up this initiative is a good idea, and the result will be an action item.

  • How do we pick the trusted person? Doesn't need to be one person though, could be 2? Vani was of the opinion that the trusted person or honest friend(if that's what we're going for) should be a different person for each WG because that kind of relationship only works if the person(s) really gets what you are doing. If they don't really understand your field of work, then they are not going to be very useful as a trusted friend. Peter added that the honest friends do indeed need to come from different WGs(one per WG) and they would be more proactive but that the trusted person will be for one who will act as a confidante(ad-hoc) or a conduit(in Vani’s words). Guillermo suggested we think of how to play the strategy in advance with a calendar, roadmap or timeline, so it doesn't go on for too long; like 2 weeks or so? and then gather up data, output them, maybe bring in an outsider from another WG/Guild to get a read of what is going on and how we do it better. Vani suggested that we set up the anonymous form to ask for people to step up as nominees for the trusted person role, and find a way to choose somebody to do the job for the quarter by handling any criticisms and issues coming through the form. We should also try and ask WGs to give a bit of reflection in their reports and raise whatever issues they think are issues for them. She added that this would be a first step towards the honest friend's approach as it would not be done right away, so WGs don't end up with a random friend who came in from nowhere to criticize their work. It has got to come from them. Guillermo suggested incorporating an AI agent into the whole critical friend role since it is brutally honest and that we should start trusting these tools to be part of the engagement and to make rational decisions. Vani pointed out that an AI agent won't understand the context of the initiative, as they have never been to a WG meeting and have no idea what the WG is doing and it defeats the point of having a critical friend. She added that the whole critical friend comes from building a relationship before you start criticising so it's a place where you can raise things you are uncertain about, so it is more discursive rather than a kind of rigid rationale. We noted that it is a good idea to at least ask WGs first if they would be in this, just in case some WGs decline taking part in the initiative.

  • How are we going to fund this initiative? It is a lot of work. The honest friends will be a scheduled thing so it needs budgeting.

  • Do we ask WGs to comment on how fewer meetings have affected them in their reports? Nobody objected to this so I guess it is an agreement.

  • Is the payment of tasks in advance a good idea or a bad one?(AI Ethics have been discussing it) The rationale behind this is the fact that token price dropped way below normal so we were kind of afraid that we would not be able to pay for things and it is being brought up because not everyone is exactly aware that they can do this since some WGs are doing it already. Peter pointed out that with the token price we can never know, seeing as paying for tasks in advance could come with a potential downside if the price goes up(I.e, overpaying for tasks), but then it might be favorable over the alternative of not having enough budget to do all your tasks. Love noted that the only way we can go unscathed in this case is if the token price gets to the point where it is double the price it was when the budget proposal one submitted was approved or something. She also added there is an issue of trust at least with her when it comes to paying people for tasks in advance, and the issue of getting pressured to do a task just because she has been paid for it already. Effiom suggested that WGs could also try this method of payment with task types which they know that the chances of completing them are pretty high and have low risk involved. Vani pointed out that it is not just about trustworthiness, but more of the task types; for example paying for AI Ethics admin roles and tasks somewhere within the quarter knowing fully well that they have been working and will continue working till the end of the quarter. Should we put a limit on this? We think it would be better if we leave people to work it out for themselves with a little guidance if they want. We could also ask WGs to reflect this on their report if they are doing it. AdvancedAmeyaw suggested paying in advance to a WG wallet(stable coin based) so that people involved in different tasks can get their agreed fixed reward amount without worries when they are done because not everyone is good at delivering what they were assigned to do on time especially if they are being paid in advance. Peter added that he wouldn't be against WG wallets if not for the fact we do need to make sure that all the transactions keep capturing the metadata of whatever the rewards are for. Peter expressed that AGIX is a utility token which can be given out as rewards for contributions only but that the moment we try to change it to stable coin for payments, it would have legal implications we do not want seeing as we are currently under SingularityNET foundation and not a separate legal entity unless anyone is up to take up that legal risk of course

Discussion Points:

  • The EOY report for last year(2024)

  • How do we address work quality in the ambassador program?

  • How do we pick the trusted person?

  • How are we going to fund this initiative?

  • Is the payment of tasks in advance a good idea or a bad one?

Decision Items:

  • We agreed to send out an anonymous form(we already have one) and ask for people to step up as nominees for the trusted person role, and find a way to choose somebody to do the job for the quarter by handling any criticisms and issues coming through the form. We would also try to ask WGs to give a bit of reflection in their reports and raise whatever issues they think are issues for them

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

  • We agreed to ask WGs to comment on how fewer meetings have affected them this quarter in their reports.

    • [effect] mayAffectOtherPeople

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: EOY Report, Work quality, Advanced payments of tasks

  • emotions: Deliberative, Contributive, Interesting

Tuesday 13th May 2025

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: CallyFromAuron [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], CallyFromAuron, UKnowZork, guillermolucero, Maxmilez, AJ, Jeffrey Ndarake, AndrewBen, AshleyDawn, hogantuso, Sucre n Spice, PeterE

  • Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

BUDGET RETHINK DECISION

We discussed rethinking the budget cap, with Vani sharing a draft spreadsheet to capture each workgroup’s bare minimum needs—just a starting point, not final figures. She emphasized the challenge of defining what's truly essential and warned against over-reporting. The goal is to understand who needs more and why, while being fair to all. We all agreed and suggested that we ask teams to show how their current cap compares to their minimum needs. To deal with token price swings, we proposed using a fixed AGI reference price or listing needs in USD for clarity. Vani will adjust the spreadsheet and is welcoming feedback.

BUDGET ALLOCATION AND PRIORITIZATION DISCUSSION

Guillermo shared that LATAM teams have been making do without asking for more, though they could really use twice as much. He questioned whether extra funding should come with clear expectations or outcomes. Vani agreed there’s need for limits, noting that more money for one team might mean less for another. She suggested adding a column in the budget spreadsheet to indicate where extra funds should come from—though she admitted that could cause tension. She also referenced Peter’s point that in the chats that being resourceful shouldn't be penalized. Ultimately, she said the group needs to figure out how to evaluate which requests are truly necessary, even if the process is uncomfortable.

BUDGET REDUCTIONS AND WORKGROUP ALLOCATION

Peter shared some tough news: due to the Phase Two token model, overall funding is dropping—about 1.241 million tokens for the year, which could mean up to a 30% cut from last quarter. Vani suggested two ways to handle it: either a flat cut for all teams or a proportional one that protects lower-funded groups. She leaned toward the flat cut for simplicity, allowing teams to request more if needed. Peter mentioned using reserves to soften the impact, but the group pushed back—reserves should be for special cases, not to cover regular gaps. Guillermo agreed, supporting a balanced, fair approach. In the end, we agreed to apply an equal percentage cut to all budget caps in the spreadsheet, with room for teams to adjust or ask for more if necessary.

BUDGET ALLOCATION DISCUSSION

Vani suggested a shift in how the group approaches budgeting. Instead of focusing strictly on financial totals—like how much each group needs or has—it might be more useful to look at the activities each team is planning and what their “bare minimum” requirements are. She emphasized the need for group input and consensus, rather than making top-down decisions. She then asked if we should distribute the budget loss evenly across all workgroups, percentage-wise? She proposed that this even distribution would serve as the budget cap for the next quarter. Guillermo reminded everyone that the next quarter starts in about two weeks, so decisions need to happen quickly. Vani volunteered to put the spreadsheet plan out by the end of the day and asked whether people could respond quickly.

FUNDING AND UPCOMING MEETINGS

We discussed cleaning up the budget spreadsheet—Vani suggested simplifying totals and rounding numbers for clarity. The meeting felt a bit stuck since progress depends on input from other teams. We used the time to plan for Thursday’s big discussion, agreeing it needs structure to avoid turning into a chaotic defense of individual projects. We’ll raise awareness through the town hall and channel reminders, even if it feels repetitive. There was tension around recent token cuts—Vani voiced concern, especially for the ambassador program, while Peter explained it was a broader, community-backed decision to stretch resources. Looking ahead, we agreed Thursday’s meeting won’t be useful without full team input. Vani offered to follow up and suggested adding a column to the spreadsheet to ask if more cuts are possible. Peter noted some teams, like Knowledge Base, aren’t requesting more, which may help balance things. We plan to tweak and share the spreadsheet by day’s end and bring it to the town hall. Vani’s unsure how Thursday will go—but expects strong turnout: “people always show up when it’s about money.” Maxmilez kindly offered to handle the meeting summary of our next (Open GovWG) meeting happening this Thursday - 15th May.

Discussion Points:

  • BUDGET RETHINK DECISION

  • BUDGET ALLOCATION AND PRIORITIZATION DISCUSSION

  • BUDGET REDUCTIONS AND WORKGROUP ALLOCATION

  • BUDGET ALLOCATION DISCUSSION

  • FUNDING AND UPCOMING MEETINGS

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani will brief Effiom about how to approach the discussion in Thursdays (Open GovWG) meeting. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [status] todo

  • [action] Maximilez will document in the next meeting on Thursday - Open GovWG meeting. [assignee] Maximilez [due] 15 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget Allocation, AGIX rate, open governance, Budget caps, Drafting document

  • emotions: informative, Discursive, Ideating, Collaborative

Thursday 15th May 2025

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: PeterE [facilitator], Maxmilez [documenter], PeterE, CallyFromAuron, Maxmilez, LordKizzy, Effiom, Nwobi, advanceameyaw, AshleyDawn, Stephen [QADAO], Coventry's Iphone, Jeffrey Ndarake, Sucre n Spice, UKnowZork, Ambassadors SingularityNET

  • Purpose: Weekly Open Governance Meeting

  • Working Docs:

Narrative:

Narrative: During the meeting we discussed several important topics: Budget submission deadlines for workgroups because only six out of twenty-one groups submitted their information as it is. We need inputs from other WG to complete the form to enable the Q3 Budget progress to its final stage. A key arouse around What should be the new deadline for workgroups to submit their budget information, in order to have others complete their form there will be need for a deadline to be announced on WGs that are yet to complete the form. After several discussions there was an agreed date set for the Deadline which is on Tuesday 2oth May at 14UTC and any WG that failed to do so, we will assume they are okay with their current Budget cap for Q3.

Token minting and its impact on budget allocations: Furthermore there was a brief breakdown on the adjustment of the AGIX token minting plan which was carried out by Peter Concerning the whole proposal here is. He pointed out that back in 2021, there was a plan to increase the circulating supply of AGIX tokens with 100%. So it used to be 1 billion and this proposal turned it into 2 billion. And the very first edition of this proposal included minting these tokens over five years total. And this was changed by community suggestion, by Jan Horlinks actually, to shift it over to 91 years in total. He went further to explain that there is a slow decline in minting over 91 years rather than a total halt in 2026. He pointed out that from the beginning of minting in 2021, the price of tokens has risen dramatically, offsetting the decline in the number of tokens produced. He added that a recent vote had approved giving the foundation 100 million tokens to be used for hardware acquisitions. With this piece of information a lot of members in this meeting understood the reason behind the budget cap and the reductions of 1.5% for every quarter.

Consent Process and Q3 Dates Discussion: (i.e. to check in the room on whether everybody thinks Tuesday is okay as a deadline)? After a closer look on what we have covered in this meeting, We all consent to the date which is Tuesday to be a meeting with the agenda of Discussing the Consent Process and Q3 Dates.

Participation and engagement in budget discussions: According to the the last run of the Anonymity consent process which was found not chaotic, a suggestion was raised regarding the upcoming Anonymity to have a survey to see if there are others will like to share their opinion on some of the budget proposals but doubt if they will if it’s not going to be Anonymous they might just decide not to share. While others suggest going back to the old ways with a point of others using the Anonymity process to consent multiple times without anyone knowing. Someone raised a suggestion in the past of putting on something like the Swarm account or some other account and then appoint one person who can see to it and that person is also not dependent on funding that at the end the column for members Discord name and email address will not be seen and having those that can verity.

While the others who is so there's only one person who can see it in that case it would be Tevo but you know we could create a whole new account just for this that only one person one trusted person can see it could be you Peter somebody who's kind of not dependent on funding is therefore not engaged and then when we share it we just delete the columns that give the person person's Discord name and email address, but we have those so that we can verify.

Structure and implications of the consent process: An issue was raised on WG whose members don’t show concern to consenting on their workgroup looking at the number of members but with little ratio when it comes to consenting and that having 60 Core contributors, what will be the Quorum for that. There was an agreement to this concerning using a Quorum in that way WG will have the responsibility to task members to approve their proposal. Someone added that in scenarios where WG members feel the whole proposal thing has been rushed by their leaders and they are not sure and feeling uneasy to speak up in the WG, they can say so by not consenting. Discussion on Upcoming Consent Round and Participation Issues

There was an addition also in preparation for the upcoming consent round, the need for an anonymous feedback form and the potential for a session to guide participants on its use and someone will have to overlook and gather feedback on quorum and anonymity in a town hall or Discord to ensure clarity among participants due to low participation rates and expressed the need for asynchronous input options.

The meeting ended on a positive and lighthearted note, while we all expressed optimism about getting WG members to consent and introducing a Quorum or not.

Discussion Points:

  • Budget submission deadlines for workgroups

  • Token minting and its impact on budget allocations

  • Participation and engagement in budget discussions

  • Structure and implications of the consent process

Action Items:

  • [action] Maxmilez will announce a deadline for workgroups that have not submitted their budget information, ensuring they are aware of the timeline to meet their obligations. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 16 May 2025 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget minimums, Consent Process, Consent deadlines

  • emotions: Collaborative

AI Sandbox/Think-tank

In this meeting we discussed:

  • Coordination Meeting and Introductions: The meeting started with a short conversation and greeting. Osmium made an announcement that he has been in discussions with Rui the CEO of MindFlex about the upcoming MindFlex Showcase, which will feature a sandbox session to present.

  • LM NoteTaker: Lord Kizzy gave a live presentation to compare the meeting summary from our previous meeting by Advance and the meeting summary from LM NoteTaker. He highlighted errors and wrong information but he concluded that the overall summary was good but also too complex. Going on he presented the meeting summary of Read.AI and also compared it.

  • AI Tool Comparisons and Feedback The discussion was led on the strengths and weaknesses of AI tools for meeting summaries, with Osmium emphasizing the structured nature of these tools but pointing out issues with pronunciation and summary accuracy. Advanceameyaw compared LM NoteTaker and Read.AI, noting that LM NoteTaker provides better organization and clarity in its summaries. It was agreed that while LM NoteTaker excels in narrative quality, both tools require human oversight to mitigate error.

  • Advanceameyaw presented a customizable workspace that allows for real-time collaboration and task tracking, highlighting its integration with various tools, including Zapier and Discord. A conference room participant inquired about the integration with Google applications and suggested creating documentation to facilitate the adoption of the tool. Osmium also mentioned sending a workflow for the video workgroup to Advanceameyaw for further ideation.

Action Items:

  • [action] Advance to outline the features he mentioned on the Airtable AI tool [assignee] advanceameyaw [due] 22 May 2025 [status] in progress

  • [action] Osmium to coordinate with Peter to discuss the integration constraints and different aspects of the project. [assignee] osmium [due] 22 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Gorgan to mentor Jeffery on documentation techniques after the call. [assignee] Gorga Siagian [due] 22 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Osmium to send a video tutorial to Advance regarding the workflow for the video workgroup. [assignee] osmium [due] 22 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Ambassador Program Site, WG/GuildsToolset, ideation, AI NoteTaker

  • emotions: informative, welcoming, interactive, Understanding.

Friday 16th May 2025

Marketing Guild

Discussion Points:

  • Updates and Introductions: Ayo led the Marketing Guild call, expressing gratitude to Photogee for managing the previous meeting in his absence. He encouraged members to contribute agenda items and highlighted the need for clarity regarding the task creation and review process, as raised by Kareem. LordKizzy requested the addition of a marketing guild budget discussion to the agenda, emphasizing the urgency for feedback before an upcoming deadline.

  • Budget Reductions and Marketing Strategy Adjustments: LordKizzy outlined the financial challenges facing the marketing program, noting a reduction in budget from 10,000 AGX to 7,171 AGX for Q2. He emphasized the need for drastic cuts and suggested restructuring the team due to inactive roles. Kareem proposed rewarding participants in AGIX tokens instead of USD to better align incentives with the program's goals. LordKizzy raised concerns about the impact of AGIX price fluctuations on budgeting for marketing initiatives. He detailed calculations showing that the current budget allocations for core and taskforce members may not be sufficient to support operational needs. Kareem added that the team should reconsider the long-term value attached to these budgets and questioned the number of subscriptions currently in place. Kareem proposed again that rewards for contributors should be given in AGIX, regardless of its price, and highlighted the necessity of restructuring roles to align compensation with individual output. Ayo questioned the implications of ongoing budget cuts for workgroups without campaigns, suggesting that adjustments should originate from governance rather than individual workgroups. LordKizzy provided context on the budget reductions, explaining they stem from a long-term agreement affecting the program's funding. The proposed budget restructuring focused on marketing campaigns was questioned, with a request for clarity on how it would affect guild members' roles and operational tasks. Kareem suggested that all roles should be aligned with marketing goals, while LordKizzy pointed out the necessity of maintaining operational functions, such as project management and documentation. The conversation underscored the challenge of allocating funds effectively while ensuring that essential activities are not neglected. Kenichi highlighted the need to consider the impact on other work groups and suggested that payments should be structured in AGIX tokens to avoid complications with USD values. LordKizzy also expressed concerns about whether AGIX adequately compensates for time spent on tasks.

Decision Items:

  • it was decided in the meeting to request for funding from the program.

    • [effect] affectsOnlyThisWorkgroup

Action Items:

  • [action] Cj Frankie to copy the document and resolve the comments on the governance documents and share them with the group for final acceptance by next week. [assignee] CJFrankie [due] 23 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] LordKizzy to add the marketing guild budget discussion to the agenda for the next meeting. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 23 May 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] LordKizzy to justify the request for additional budget allocation to the program reserves by Tuesday. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 20 May 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget Management , Proposals

  • emotions: forward-thinking, Understanding. , Understanding.

PreviousWeek 19NextWeek 21

Last updated