Week 44
Mon 27th Oct - Sun 2nd Nov 2025
Monday 27th October 2025
Strategy Guild
Type of meeting: Monthly
Present: Ayo [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], UKnowZork, Effiom, Alfred Itodele, Ayo, Kateri
Purpose: Monthly meeting update
Working Docs:
Narrative:
The meeting faced a slight delay due to technical issues with Zoom, leading participants to switch to Google Meet. Once all attendees were present, the meeting began with the review of agenda items. The discussion then moved to Q4 budget proposal updates. Since most members had already attended the previous governance call, the group agreed to proceed directly with the budget outlook.
Q4 Outlook: Ayo spoke about Q4 tasks and encouraged everyone to begin their work without delay. Effiom reported that the workshop materials and setup from the previous quarter were successful and well-prepared. The focus for this quarter will be to gather feedback from workgroups on how they have applied the workshop’s solutions and outcomes.
Token Price & Budget: Ayo emphasized that the Q4 budget allocation is significantly smaller, compounded by a drastic drop in token prices. This shortfall has made it impossible to cover task obligations, raising concerns about how to proceed. Alfred stressed that payments should not be withheld despite market volatility. He gave the example of AI Ethics, where withholding payments during a downturn led to even worse outcomes as the token value continued to fall. He cautioned that it is often better to disburse funds when conditions are relatively better. Alfred also proposed that payments be made in AGIX (the local token) rather than USD.
This was noted as a good suggestion, with agreement that members should reflect on it and revisit the decision at the next meeting.
TownHall Presentation: Effiom to present the guild update in the townhall meeting.
A.O.B: Ayo shared that the research has officially begun and has already been shared. We are now in the stage of awaiting responses from participants. Further updates will follow as responses come in.
Action Items:
[action] Effiom to present the meeting update in the Town Hall meeting [assignee] Effiom [due] 28 October 2025 [status] todo
[action] Ayo to share update on the research [assignee] Ayo [due] 24 November 2025 [status] todo
[action] Effiom to follow up on the Q4 task [assignee] Effiom [due] 24 November 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Q4 outlook, Town Hall, Token Price
emotions: Determined, Satisfaction
Tuesday 28th October 2025
Governance Workgroup
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: Ayomi Shuga [facilitator], UKnowZork, CallyFromAuron [documenter], Ayomi Shuga, UKnowZork, PeterE, Alfred Itodele, AshleyDawn, Évéline Trinité, guillermolucero, Omolola Lawson, CallyFromAuron, Kateri
Purpose: Regular Weekly Open Governance Meeting
Narrative:
This was a discursive meeting, introducing some new ideas, and wasn't aiming at making decisions at this stage.
KEY QUESTIONS:
Should rewards be based more on impact and outcomes, rather than (as at present) on budget requests in advance, and KPIs?
What changes would be required, and how might it affect funding and accountability?
How should we measure impact?
BUDGET APPROVAL IN RETROSPECT? This idea originated from discussions in a long Gov WG meeting last year, where it was suggested that rather than putting forward a budget plan for the coming Quarter, and getting consent in advance for things that might not happen (e.g. due to changes in token price), it might be better if WGs made spending decisions ad-hoc, and then reported at the end of the Quarter on what that had done, and if the community's consent for them to continue was given in retrospect on the basis of how they had managed their budgets. So WGs make no specific promises on what they will spend money on, other than that they will spend it wisely; and during the Quarter they can be responsive to changing conditions; and at the end, they are assessed on their results, not their promises So although there would be a danger of a WG mismanaging funds for one Quarter, after that they would no longer get the community's consent to continue.
This becomes easier now that we have implemented budget caps, so a WG cannot go above a pre-agreed amount.
And incorporating more recent discussions in GovWG about impact and outcomes - should we be asking WGs to report on the impact of their work, rather than outputs and KPIs, and is that what we should be asking the community to assess them on? So not so much "was it done?" but "was it a good idea?"
HOW TO MEASURE IMPACT? Should we use a WG's past performance / track record as a guide to assessing its impact? Perhaps not, because even a group with no track record could still have impact.
Should we take the radical approach of putting all WGs on “probation” next Quarter, and they must prove their impact in order to continue? Could be a bit too harsh - but addresses the issue that at present, if no impact is made, nothing happens and it's not a problem. But overall, people felt the "everyone is on probation" approach would be unfair, since some WGs have been producing impact.
Each WG could create a simplified / minimal Theory of Change to make intended impact cleearer - they could point to what has happened to move them towards their intended change? Or a Social Value / Social Return on Investment approach?
Problem with measuring impact is that it requires gathering data, often qualitative data - which is expensive work that WGs rarely budget for.
IMPACT, EXPERIMENTATION, RISK, AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRAM? Guillermo: if some WGs are not bringing outcomes, it raises concerns about the sustainability of the Program. Fairness - we should not treat all workgroups the same when they have different track records. Acccountability is important - but we shouldn't be too ready to experiment or change the whole process when token price is so low.
The alternative view was that low token price is the time to experiment with our processes, as we have little to lose in financial terms.
Should we be more cautious and less experimental when token price is low? And would an "impact-based" approach mean more experimentation and risk taking, or less? If a WG tried a new idea and it failed and had no impact (even if they did other work that did have impact), would that failure mean they risk losing their funding in the following Quarter if the rest of the community disapproved? OR is the focus more on a "consent process" idea of "has it caused harm?" i.e. even if one part of a EWG;s work fails, the community would still consent if they felt that continuing to give them a budget was sufficiently safe and they were not going to keep wasting money?
REPORTING GUIDELINES, CONSENT, AND THE DANGERS OF A MAJORITY VOTe Advance planning can helps maintain focus and accountability However at times of falling token price, the need for constant "budget fitting" is a lot of overhead. It might be better to leave WGs free to decide on spending ad-hoc, in response to conditions, rather than having to conform to an advance plan that might not be sustainable. Planning would of course still be done, but it would be more internal.
Perhaps a WG's Theory of Change would become its "plan"? Keep the focus on what the impact needs to be, and respond to changing conditions to determine the best way to achieve it?
Alfred: We need clearer reporting guidelines. And - will the decision on how well a WG spent its money be a consent process, or will it morph into a majority vote? Will it give WGs too much freedom to do things without having to seek approval first? Without proper guidelines, the process couldturn into a popularity contest; and WGs with large memberships could secure majority approval even if they are not showing much impact.
IMPLEMENTING CHANGES? We noted that not all WGs are represented in Governance meetings, so they cannot be decision-making in and of themselves. But we also noted that meetings are open and people could attend if they chose - and also, any decision we suggest will be posted in the Decision-To-Be-Made Discord channel, and given a week for objections to be raised
FINAL THOUGHTS We agreed to a) reflect further on the idea of not submitting budgets in advance, and b) try to come up with other ideas for how to connect rewards with real impact. We will discuss further next meeting - the planned topic is ideas for changes to the consent process, so it's part of the same overall subject.
Discussion Points:
Should we shift from budget-based to impact-based rewards for workgroups.
Budget approval in retrospect?
How to measure or track impact?
Experimentation, risk, and sustainability of the Program?
Reporting guidelines, consent, and the dangers of majority voting
Decision Items:
A follow-up discussion will take place in the next meeting, alongside broader talks on improving the consent process. Members will reflect on alternative ways to connect rewards with demonstrated impact before then.
[rationale] Because the discussion today was inconclusive.
[opposing] Experimentation and sustainability of the Program?
[effect] mayAffectOtherPeople
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: Consent Process, transparency, fairnesss, accountability, flexibility, probation, theory of change, token price, impact, outcomes, KPIs
emotions: Collaborative, forward-looking, insightful, informative, Measuring outcomes, Only a few of those present spoke
Ambassador Town Hall
Type of meeting: Weekly
Present: PeterE [facilitator], NA, CallyFromAuron [documenter], Alfred Itodele, Ayo, Colly Pride, Stephen [QADAO], Tevo, CallyFromAuron, sharmila, EstherG, guillermolucero, Haley Lowy, PeterE
Purpose: Regular weekly get-together for the Ambassador Program. Discussion of community-wide issues; sharing of updates and info; and in the last meeting of each month, an update from each Workgroup on what they have been doing
Town Hall Number: 170
Working Docs:
Timestamped video:
The Ambassador Town Hall is a recurring event happening live on the Ambassador Zoom channel https://www.youtube.com/@SNET_Ambassador each Tuesday at 18:00 UTC.
00:00 Intro & Time Zone Troubles 05:50 Ai Game & Tool Showcase 07:43 Town Hall Overview 13:21 Bgi25 Unconference Learnings 29:26 Bgi25 Hackathon Highlights 45:40 Asi Chain & Future Proposals
Town Hall Summary:
No summary available due to limited meeting data.
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: time zones, AI games, BGI-25 Virtual Unconference, BGI-25 hackathon, ASI Chain
emotions: quiet, low attendance, thoughtful, retrospective
Wednesday 29th October 2025
Education Workgroup
Type of meeting: Biweekly
Present: Gorga Siagian [facilitator], Kateri [documenter], LordKizzy, Alfred Itodele, UKnowZork, Slate, osmium, ese, Gorga Siagian, Kateri
Purpose: Biweekly meeting updates
Working Docs:
Discussion Points:
CCCP Program: Slate mentioned that the content creation has been finalized, although a few corrections still need to be made to the infographic formatting. He explained that progress was placed on hold due to the current token price crisis and proposed that we move to a monthly meeting schedule. We can move to the next phase which is putting the content on the website.
Visual Glossary: Slate proposed Visual Glossary initiatives, he noted that it is a 100 USD task and we could add it to out deliverables for this quarter. We agreed on the initiatives, noting that we need deliverables for this quarter.
ASI academy: Gorga recalled that during the previous meeting, the group agreed to pause all payment tasks related to the ASI Academy until the token price improves. However, he noted that Osmium has not yet created the corresponding task, which is causing a delay in implementing the pause decision. Osmium noted that he should be paid for creating the blueprint of the ASI academy.
Governance Webinar series: LordKizzy asked the Education Guild to provide clarity on their current plans and funding availability. He explained that this information is needed to determine whether the guild is still able to fund initiatives, so that the governance webinars team can conclude and properly close off ongoing initiatives. Osmium noted that currently they are at the end of the second phase, and it just remains to host the Webinar.
Collaboration with onboarding workgroup: Slate noted that he joined onboarding workgroup last meeting and there was distribution of task but not was given to education guild. Kateri noted that Sucren gave education guild a certain amount to contribute for the success of the collaboration.
Osmium argued that the Glossary initiative presented by Slate should not be funded as it was not presented in this quarter's budget, but other members explained that it is a low budget initiative and implementing it won't affect our plans for this quarter
Action Items:
[action] Osmium to create the task plan for members to be assigned and work on ASI Academy activities. [assignee] osmium [due] 12 November 2025 [status] todo
Keywords/tags:
topics covered: CCCP, ASI Academy, Token price, visual glossary, Governance series, Onboarding WG
emotions: Need for Clarity
Last updated