Week 22

Mon 26th May - Sun 1st Jun 2025

Monday 26th May 2025

Strategy Guild

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 there’s not much feedback, 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. The Guild is 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, Strategy Guild is now set to receive $861, which is adjusted to 2,868 AGIX tokens at the current rate of $0.3 per AGIX. 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: Jeffery asked about 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, Research, Onboarding, Task, African guild, Q2 updates, Ecosystem

  • emotions: Insightful, welcoming, progressive, relaxed, collaborative, Resourceful

Tuesday 27th May 2025

Governance Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Maxmilez [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], Maxmilez, UKnowZork, PeterE, Kevin, AshleyDawn, Duresameen Ashraf, Effiom, guillermolucero, advanceameyaw, Jeffrey Ndarake, Sucre n Spice, Tevo, hogantuso, Vasu Madaan

  • Purpose: Regular Weekly GovWG meeting

Narrative:

We had an in-depth conversation about how abstentions are handled in votes, the true purpose of the consent process, and some of the challenges we’ve been facing with engagement and budgeting. Peter pointed out that we can’t fully tackle the root issues unless we understand why someone abstains. Often, it’s not because they disagree but simply because they don’t have the time to review. He suggested we rethink what abstaining means—maybe we ask folks to object only when they see potential harm, and if they don’t have the time to review, they just abstain without needing to explain much. Vani and Kevin explored the idea of limiting abstentions—maybe allowing it only in certain cases, like for specific workgroups or a short time window. Kevin, who isn’t a regular at every meeting, said he abstains when he doesn’t fully understand a proposal and would find it helpful if we had clear, simple summaries before votes. Tuso added that abstaining can sometimes act as a “soft no,” a way for people to avoid blocking a proposal without outright objecting. Tuso, Kelvin, and Duresameen agreed that the reason for abstention should be stated to avoid confusion and disengagement. Tuso also warned that if we don’t address these issues, we risk losing more engagement over time. Kevin asked for clarity—are abstentions a sign of disengagement, or do they actually block proposals? Vani reminded everyone that consent isn’t about traditional voting; if someone doesn’t object, they’re effectively consenting, so abstentions without clear reasons can muddy the process.

We reflected on whether abstentions should be anonymous. Some felt that removing anonymity might make people hesitant to object, while others believed transparency could lead to more open dialogue. There was general agreement that many abstain simply due to time constraints or not fully understanding a proposal—not necessarily because they disagree. Tevo suggested we introduce a checklist for abstainers to indicate why they’re sitting out—lack of time, uncertainty, or something else. Maxmilez thought tracking these reasons over time could reveal patterns and help improve the process in the long run. We also discussed broader issues, like how engagement has dropped, possibly due to lower budgets and a tough market. Some noted that while the consent process is meant to help us govern better, it’s sometimes creating bottlenecks. There’s also frustration that decision-making can feel inconsistent when people aren’t sure what’s being voted on. Tuso and others emphasized that unless we address these governance challenges, we risk stagnating as a community.

Kevin called for a focused effort to tackle these long-standing issues—especially around governance and budgeting. He suggested a dedicated workshop to finalize a model that works, while Vani Vani noted that getting our processes finalized/set in stone isn't what we are aiming for, and is arguably anti-decentralisation. Governance processes should remain livid and fluid, and we should rethink them each quarter based on retrospectives and discussions this way, new people and ideas can always influence what goes on, and it doesn't all get decentralized. Tuso and others emphasized that unless we address these governance challenges, we risk stagnating as a community. He emphasized that getting the abstention process right is key to improving engagement and decision-making.

In the course of the meeting we discussed specific options for the abstain feature in the consent process: -Remove abstain entirely, -Keep it, but add a dropdown to explain reasons,

  • Or keep it as is, but improve documentation.

There was mixed feedback on whether a simple majority voting system might work better, but most were cautious about moving away from the consent model. One suggestion was to introduce a threshold—if more than 50% abstain, the topic should go back for more discussion.

On the topic of voting anonymity, opinions were split. Some supported transparency, while others thought anonymity helps newer members feel safe speaking up. A recent poll showed the group evenly divided, so this topic will need more conversation.

Budget tracking also came up—people noted that while the budget has been reduced, it’s not always clear how the money is being spent. Clearer ownership and task assignments for budget items were flagged as a priority. We agreed to review the budget cap form results on Thursday and aim for final decisions by Monday. A summary of this discussion will be shared at tonight’s Town Hall to get broader community input. Further conversations around abstentions and voting anonymity will continue in upcoming meetings, possibly with async discussions or polls.

The meeting wrapped up with an encouragement to join the Town Hall to stay informed and engaged in the conversation.

Discussion Points:

  • Discussion on how abstentions are handled in votes, the true purpose of the consent process, and some of the challenges we’ve been facing with engagement and budgeting.

Action Items:

  • [action] Vani will draft a consent form for the Q3 budget consent process based on the discussions from today’s meeting. She’ll share it in the governance channel for feedback and input—especially from those who couldn’t attend today's meeting. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 27 May 2025 [status] done

  • [action] Vani to set up an emoji poll in the Governance channel on the question of anonymity. [assignee] CallyFromAuron [due] 27 June 2025 [status] done

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Consent Process, Budget, Vote, Anonymity, Abstentions, Governance Channel, Workgroup, Quarter, Ambassador program, Decision, Townhall, DeepFunding, Q3 2025

  • emotions: Discursive, Brainstorm, Ideating, Thoughtful, forward-looking, engaging

Wednesday 28th May 2025

Education Workgroup

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: Slate [facilitator], UKnowZork [documenter], Slate, UKnowZork, esewilliams, Gorga Siagian, osmium, Kateri, LordKizzy, Alfred Itodele

  • Purpose: Q3 Budget Request Disscussion - CCCP Discussion

  • Working Docs:

Discussion Points:

  • Meeting started with Slate welcoming everybody

  • Then the topic shifted to the Q3 Budget discussion, Slated noted that if we take the current token price rate now we'd be having $1200 as our budget and we still have allocations to some backlogs like Governance framework project - $1300 and an extra of $220 from Q3, Presentation (Kinechi) $70, Call and administration task $360 and Certification Program $1360.

  • Then the discussions started in regards to Certification Program project. Slate noted that we are looking for a platform to showcase the certification Program & we allocated $222 to it.

  • Then the discussion in regards to how to allocate funds for CCCP started in which funding is required for the Assesor role. Slate also stated that in Q3 we're taking 5 projects for the certification Program.

  • We also had a discussion on Deepfunding review role. Slate proposed to have it done in the guild. He noted that this could give credibility to a person and this could also increase one's reputation score in the guild.

  • More discussions will be done based on the feedback received and continuing it in the next call

Action Items:

  • [action] Work on the deepfunding review role [assignee] Slate [due] 28 May 2025 [status] in progress

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: DeepFunding, Q3, Budget Allocation, Certification program

  • emotions: forward-looking, insightful, Ideating

Thursday 29th May 2025

AI Sandbox/Think-tank

  • Type of meeting: Weekly

  • Present: osmium [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], PeterE, advanceameyaw, Gorga Siagian, hogantuso, Jeffrey Ndarake, martinsoki, Max Milez, UKnowZork, Darshana Patel

  • Purpose: Weekly meeting on Mindplex

In this meeting we discussed:

  • The meeting begin at exactly 12:03 UTC, with Osmium extending greetings to everyone present.

  • The discussion centered around Mindplex blockchain. Osmium noted that Mindplex operates based on a carefully designed tokenomics system involving MPX token and MPXR token. He noted that MPXR can be gotten from uploading articles or magazine in Mindplex site

  • As there was no show from the participant for the Mindplex showcase, Osmium gave an insight from articles that were shared and also shared that he had been working on something with Mindplex and it is going to be called News Bits. This News bits will be hosted by an Avatar and shared on our various social media, we watch a live showcase of what it was going to be like.

  • Further discussion included the suggestion of the writers workgroup contributing to the Mindplex platform to increase visibility. The metrics of Mindplex were reviewed which it highlighted a significant number of active users.

  • Peter provided an update on the ambassador program website development, proposing a workshop for community feedback and emphasizing the importance of collaboration. Peter updated that the website is in progress and it will have a workable version ready by next week. We had a work show on the website and gave suggestions.

Action Items:

  • [action] Peter to schedule a workshop for the community to provide feedback on the website being developed [assignee] PeterE [status] todo

  • [action] Members to give feedback on the sample of the News Bits video that was shared [assignee] all [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: News Bits, SingularityNet website, Mindplex Magazine

  • emotions: Satisfaction , Understanding. , forward-looking

Governance Workgroup

Narrative:

The workgroup convened to address multiple ongoing topics, including the debate over anonymity, budget allocations, and aligning funding with workgroup priorities. We reviewed the results of a Discord poll on anonymity, noting an almost even split (7-6) between those favoring a return to anonymity and those preferring to keep the current system. This lack of a clear consensus made it difficult to finalize a decision. Discussions reflected the complexity of balancing transparency with anonymity, recognizing that each approach carries trade-offs.

We also reviewed data on workgroup priorities, highlighting that while some workgroups—like GitHub PBL—received mostly low-priority votes, others—such as Treasury Guild—were seen as critical. The importance of cross-referencing these priorities with perceptions of under-resourcing was acknowledged, though it was agreed this could not be fully addressed in the current session. Vani raised concerns about the challenges of sharing data containing personal information, and Peter pointed out limitations in treating the small sample size as statistically significant.

Budget constraints and token price fluctuations were a central theme. We discussed whether to adjust the token rate to 32 cents to accommodate variations, though concerns were raised about fairness and the impact of such changes. It was suggested that Treasury Guild could be a logical starting point for funding discussions, given its critical role. We acknowledged the need for a clear, actionable proposal, with Tevo and Effiom volunteering to draft a budget cap suggestion over the weekend using AI tools for data analysis. We also briefly touched on the consent form draft, ensuring reasons for abstaining were included, and discussed how adjustments to voting rules might impact future decisions.

The meeting wrapped up with recognition of the progress made, despite the complex and sometimes disorganized nature of the discussion. We emphasized the importance of having a concrete proposal as a foundation for further debate and decision-making.

Action Items:

  • [action] Tevo and Effiom will draft a budget cap suggestion based on available data and insights from the discussion. [assignee] Effiom, Tevo [due] 5 June 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Priority, Workgroups, Budget caps, Anonymity, Consent, Ambassador Program reserves

  • emotions: Interactive, detailed, collaborative, educative

Friday 30th May 2025

Marketing Guild

Discussion Points:

  • Updates and Introductions: Ayo led the Marketing Guild call, highlighting the importance of keeping discussions concise to address key agenda items such as the Q3 budget and GitHub board updates. Ayo also requested Martinsoki to share the summary notes from the last meeting and the agenda document.

  • Updates on Meeting Outcomes and Budget Discussion: Ayo sought confirmation on whether LordKizzy, Gorga, Kateri, advanceameyaw, esewilliams had met, which they confirmed occurred on Saturday. CJ Frankie discussed challenges with a document and was encouraged to refer to the meeting recording for clarification. Ayo highlighted the importance of obtaining feedback from the committee before proceeding with the guild budget discussion.

  • Discussion on Payment Structures and Tax Allocation: Advanceameyaw highlighted the importance of prioritizing tasks aligned with the Ambassador program's mission, specifically addressing AGIX payments and potential tax cuts. LordKizzy added that discussions around AGIX payments revealed inconsistencies in reward values across different workgroups, which could lead to confusion. LordKizzy outlined a proposal to restructure the Guild by splitting it into operations and initiatives teams. The operations team would manage daily activities, while the initiatives team would consist of members who can submit project proposals. Funding would be allocated based on project completion, with 75% going to the initiatives team and 25% to operations. Ayo asked committee members to write down their recommendations for Guild restructuring to facilitate clearer discussions. Kenichi highlighted the importance of unity within the Guild, arguing against splitting into two groups, as it could lead to division. He proposed that all members should pitch in ideas for initiatives collaboratively. Kareem expressed concerns about splitting the guild into two groups, suggesting that everyone should contribute to initiatives collectively. LordKizzy supported the idea of multiple groups, arguing that it would allow for better task distribution and accountability. He highlighted the importance of prioritizing low-cost initiatives due to limited funding, stating that both groups would need to work within a shared budget. Ayo emphasized the importance of maintaining unity within the guild while discussing the potential for splitting into two groups for better management. LordKizzy outlined two recommendations: one focused on restructuring payment to a conversion rate of 0.2 AGX, and the other on restructuring the guild and payment processes. The discussions included considerations of feasibility and sustainability regarding payment methods. Ayo raised questions about the timing for decisions related to the quarterly report and budget proposal, while LordKizzy clarified the submission deadline is around June 7th or 9th. The focus group plans to meet over the weekend to discuss two AGIX initiatives and their budget implications. LordKizzy emphasized the need for clarity on funding and proposed budget allocations for the initiatives.

  • Attendance Review Discussion: Ayo highlighted the need to review attendance for the last quarter, which has not been addressed in prior meetings. Mikasa reiterated the importance of this review, expressing confusion over its connection to task completion. LordKizzy clarified that both Eric Davies and Martinsoki documented attendance and that the review would follow an assessment of task outputs. Mikasa expressed frustration over the slow progress in reviewing attendance records, which she believed should have been addressed earlier. LordKizzy explained that the attendance initiative was introduced in Q4 to address issues with deliverables and meeting participation. Mikasa volunteered to compile the attendance data for the next meeting, while Ayo highlighted the importance of punctuality in meetings to allow for more discussion time.

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] 6 June 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Ese will share the Q1 report document for comments and feedback. [assignee] esewilliams [due] 6 June 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Ayo to help CJFrankie get the Read AI meeting summary date [assignee] Ayo [due] 6 June 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] LordKizzy to flesh out the details of the initiatives and operations team structure during the weekend. [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 6 June 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] LordKizzy to create demo on the budget distribution sheet [assignee] LordKizzy [due] 6 June 2025 [status] todo

  • [action] Mikasa to handle the review of attendance for the last quarter [assignee] Mikasa [due] 6 June 2025 [status] todo

Keywords/tags:

  • topics covered: Budget Management , Governance document, Meeting attendance

  • emotions: Interactive, Understanding. , informative

PreviousWeek 21NextJune 2025

Last updated