Epicenter - Learn about Crypto, Blockchain, Ethereum, Bitcoin and Distributed Technologies - Auryn Macmillan & Kei Kreutler: Zodiac – The Expansion Pack for DAOs

Episode Date: January 20, 2022

Zodiac is a collection of tools built according to an open standard which proposes a composable design philosophy for DAOs. Built by the Gnosis Guild team, this extension pack for DAOs enables connection between platforms, protocols, and chains, no longer confined to monolithic designs. It not only changes access, but bridges chains, organizations, and networks through DAO-to-DAO (D2D) collaboration mechanisms.We were joined by Kei Kreuther and Auryn Macmillan, founders of Gnosis Guild, a core contributor to the Zodiac platform. Hear as we chat about the rise of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, the Zodiac Toolset and how it works, and the future of DAOs in not only the blockchain space but also in the real economy.Topics covered in this episode:Kei and Auryn's backgrounds and how they got into cryptoWhere DAOs came from and the arc of their evolutionThe overlap between DAOs and cooperativesUnraveling the abundance of DAO toolsThe components and modules of the Zodiac ToolsetThe types of legacy organizations or governance structures that are most ripe to transition into DAOsThe future of DAOs and their place within the real economyEpisode links:A prehistory of DAOsEp 33 - Reality Keys – A Certificate Authority for FactsWhat DAOs and Cooperatives can learn from each otherFostering Worker Cooperatives with Blockchain Technology: Lessons from the Colony ProjectGnosis Guild BlogZodiacGnosis Guild DiscordGnosis Guild on TwitterKei on TwitterAuryn on TwitterSponsors:Chorus One: Chorus One runs validators on cutting edge Proof of Stake networks such as Cosmos, Solana, Celo, Polkadot and Oasis. - https://epicenter.rocks/chorusoneParaSwap: ParaSwap aggregates all major DEXs and makes sure you beat the market price at every single swap and with the lowest slippage - paraswap.io/epicenterThis episode is hosted by Sebastien Couture. Show notes and listening options: epicenter.tv/427

Welcome to Epicenter, the show which talks about the technologies, projects, and people driving decentralization and the blockchain revolution. My name is Sibha Sinkwitio. Today I'm speaking with Kia Kreutler and Al-Run-McMillin. They are co-founders of Gnosis Guild. And today we'll be diving deep into Dow's, Dow infrastructure, Dow tooling, and sort of looking at the breadth of things that people are doing with Tao's and what Tao's might reserve for the future. But before we talk to Kia and Arun, I'd like to tell you about our sponsors this week. Are your crypto assets sitting idle in your wallet? Start earning rewards and contribute to network security by staking with Corus 1. A staking provider securing $5 billion in assets on over 25

decentralized networks including Solana, Cosmos, and Ethereum. Corus 1 has released the annual staking review for the year 2021. It contains over 70 pages of insights and analysis into some of the most important proof of stake networks right now. You can go to Corus. and download the report for free. And if you've been a loyal Salana delegator with Corse 1, make sure to check your wallets. In the first ever major NFT dropped by any validator. Corus 1 air dropped over 3,600 exclusive NFTs to its Salana delegators,

according to their delegation profile in December 2021. The NFTs are also available on the secondary market on platforms like Magic Eden. But if you miss on thisirdrop, don't worry. You can still participate in the upcoming Airways. Air drops for cosmos chains by simply delegating two chorus one nodes. If you're interested in running your own branded nodes, while they have a managed white label node as a service offering that leverages course ones highly available and proven infrastructure enabling you

to participate directly in decentralized networks. So head over to chorus.1 to start your staking journey. And we're also brought to you by pariswap. With periswap, you can beat market prices every single block. It's fast, highly liquid, and they just launched their E5, which has new contracts and the new API. It has a more module infrastructure, which is more gas-friendly and now supports free approvals using Ethereum's permit messages. They also recently added support for Avalanche, Polygon, and BSC, and you can always use Paraswap with your ledger right in Ledger Live.

So go to pariswap.io to get started. Kia and Arun, thanks so much for joining me today. I'm really excited about this episode. I spent the whole day just like reading, I had like a million tabs open, reading like everything I could about Dow's, Dow and infrastructure or like Dow theory and collaboration theory on the internet. And I think this is going to be like a really, really cool episode. So thanks so much for joining me today. Yeah, thanks for having us.

Really excited to be here. So yeah, let's perhaps start a little with some introductions. You know, how did you guys get into crypto and what's your background? How do you come to be working on Dow tooling at Nosis? Cool. So hey, also thanks for having us on. And I'm here. I'm actually a writer, artist and former kind of front-end developer. I've been mainly interested in how cultural narratives of technologies shape their use. So I had a kind of long path through working on more open source projects,

open source mapping projects, a lot of kind of more grassroots tech initiatives. And I've been following Ethereum and kind of the crypto space for a while. And I was really interested in, like, what a site of experimentation it seemed like. So I think I was like passing through Berlin in in 2014 and I ended up at Wikimedia, which was a space where they'd often hold meetups. And it was before Ethereum launched and it was basically a bunch of people trying to set up an early kind of client for Ethereum. And I'm not sure if any of us managed to get it working, but there was a particular energy to that event that I think was not present in most of the tech meetups that I would go to at a time. And it wasn't clear that it would be successful,

it wouldn't be clear that it would be speculated upon. It was real just kind of renewed emphasis on forms of computation that were decentralized, that were private, hopefully, and also that could really kind of change how not only software finance operates, but how organizations operate. So I followed Ethereum for quite some time, basically kept the tab on after the launch and as projects were built on it, and then I joined the space full time in 2017, Innosis. So I've been there the last over four years,

and I've always had more of a focus on kind of what organizational change it will bring. So I've been really lucky to work with Oring and basically co-found Nosis Guild, which has been incubated by Nosis to focus on governance and doubt tooling. And I guess I stumbled into the blockchain space in 2013. I saw a news article on the deep web, the dark web, and kind of started poking around a tall browser and found my way onto various kind of marketplaces. everything was denominated in this weird Bitcoin thing. And so that kind of was the start of the rabbit hole, trying to figure out what that was and why it was valuable and why people were kind of selling stuff on the deep web for Bitcoin.

And I guess like shortly after that, I found my way to a bunch of Vatallics reasonably early writing. And the thing that kind of immediately captivated me there were some of his early pieces on DOWs, on the concept of DOWS. I was playing basketball professionally at the time, and so that that was eating most of my time. But this kind of seed just grew and slowly consumed more and more of my bandwidth over the kind of subsequent few years. And then in 2016, the Dow project kind of sprung up.

And I immediately just kind of immersed myself in that, founded the Dow Hub Forum, which kind of became the de facto home for the Dow's community. community and that kind of snowballed into a full-time career in DOWs, in all things, DOWs. So kind of, yeah, went through this meteoric rise and catastrophic fall of the DOW, and then from that did a whole bunch of work with various different projects in the space kind of early on, NOSIS included back in 2017, and then spent some time with Colony for a couple of years, well and then back to NOSS a few years back. And yeah, since being there, I've helped launch the NOSISDAO and now founded NOSIS Guild with Kia to focus on Zodiac, this new kind of, I guess, standard and suite of tooling for kind of composable interoperable

DAOs. Cool. Yeah. I mean, I definitely like associate with, you know, with what you're saying in terms of like being feeling like fully encapsulated by this new concept and this new technology. I mean, I remember early, in the early days around 2014 and 2015, I think one of the things that I found the most interesting about Bitcoin and Ethereum was that, you know, we didn't really have the word Dow then, but, you know, there was this concept of like those, those things like, you know, those blockchains within themselves being autonomous and and being sort of organizations of people that were maintaining the ledger. And I think that for a lot of people, that really resonated with them.

And then, you know, there's, I think the first time that I ever kind of encountered this concept of, you know, autonomous sort of agents was an early Mike Hearn talk from 2013 or 2014, where I think he's at some Google event and he's describing this world where we have autonomous vehicles that are sort of self-owning and they're able to like, you know, buy their own energy and get on fast lanes and pay for things and receive payment and even like spawn off like new cars, like by ordering new cars to sort of, you know, build, build their self-driving business. And that just blew my mind. And I think that's what really got me excited about this whole space and about Dow's in general. You know, what excites you the most about Dow's? And what would you say is like the sort of cutting edge

of like Dow technology today. Like what are the most innovative things that people are doing with DAOs? So I think the, I don't know, maybe meshing the answer of both of those questions into one, the thing that kind of excites me most, I think the kind of real cutting edge of DAO's

is the potential and kind of reality of systems that produce some desired outcome from, as an emergent result of kind of uncoordinated inputs. And so you talked about, say, the Bitcoin network or the Ethereum network being these early instantiations of DAWs, you know, in large part before the kind of concept, or at least like the word DAW was in ready circulation. But these networks are most certainly DAWs.

And they're DAVs with these kind of very, very tightly scoped roles or very tightly scoped kind of outputs that are very carefully engineered to be the result, the kind of emergent result of a whole bunch of uncoordinated actors kind of providing inputs to the system. I think there's this huge design space for essentially engineering other outcomes as emergent results from uncoordinated inputs. Quadratic voting, quadratic funding in particular, I think are two great examples of this where you have in quadratic funding case, the kind of desired outcome is a well-allocated pool of capital to some sector of public goods.

And the way that you kind of arrive at that allocation is from the uncoordinated inputs of people contributing to projects that they value. And I think kind of generalizing that idea of finding some desired outcome and then engineering a way to reach that outcome through uncoordinated inputs, is going to be really crucial for DOWs to continue to kind of achieve the scale that I think a lot of people are hoping DOWs are going to be able to, as in push beyond the kind of theoretical or practical limits of kind of more traditional firms. Yeah, and likewise, building on that, I think it's interesting that you kind of wrote DOWs

in terms of its autonomous quality, because I think that that's a quality that is much less emphasized today. We see it with kind of distributed ledgers, but in a lot of the social social media. or even some of the protocol that was operating today, it's much less at the forefront than it used to be. Because I would give a kind of early definition of what the idea of a DAO was as something like an organization with automation at its center and humans at the edges. So the idea that actions like how capital could be released or how protocol functions happen in an autonomous manner. And I think it gave root to a lot of interesting imaginations like, you know, Dax for kind of natural systems or Diodans and the same way that we see legal personhood,

into rivers and coral reefs, et cetera. And a lot of that discourse has kind of faded into the background, but I wholly expected to re-emerge in the next couple of years as Dow tooling starts to mature. What I'm most excited about is actually the kind of cultural ramifications of DAO's. Because I feel like it's kind of captured an energy of activism, as well as maybe not autonomous in the technical sense, but autonomous in a more kind of approach to political organizing,

that groups can have a kind of more grassroots approach, but still have as much, if not greater than impact, of kind of traditional firms or, let's say, corporations that operate at larger scales. So I'm really excited about just the kind of good-hearted energy going into the space and really confident that people with kind of more political science-minded or essentially more social science-minded can guide some of the DAO's towards these better outcomes or to more impactful outcomes. Of course, there are always swaps along the way and hilarious kind of,

missteps, but I think it's promising much more so than other spaces that I see people working in today. That's a really interesting way to look at it. I guess I still think of it as a decentralized autonomous organization, but you're right. Like a lot of the DAO's that we see being summoned today and sort of organizing today are more just organizations of humans working together towards a common goal than something that's fully automated.

And I think, like, you know, the early Taos like the Tao maybe had more of, uh, of this philosophy of like fully automating, you know, for instance, like a fund in a sense. And it was less so about like this grassroots sort of effort. Um, you know, when you think of something that's, uh, you know, grassroots and that that brings together lots of different people, you think of cooperatives. And I wonder what are the parallels in your view, like what are parallels between cooperatives as we as we know them like you know in most jurisdictions you have like you know a stat like a sort of legal uh status for for uh for co-op or a cooperative in france it's like a you know a societe the cooperat sieve or something like that in germany we have the same thing and

so what are the overlaps between dows and cooperatives as you see them sure so in a recent essay a prehistory of dows i gave one definition of a dal that does that does definitely does not apply across the space, but potentially a kind of voluntary association that prioritizes, let's say, the operating principles of cooperativism. So when people are talking about co-ops, they actually usually mean a specific legal structure with Democratic member control and economic ownership. I say that DAO's prioritized them as operating principles, basically to shift the space towards because, well, basically because it's a, they could emphasize co-ownership of contributors to the DAO. It's quite easy for those who are contributing to be able to have greater economic stake in what they're producing. And this isn't something that we always see with traditional firms. So I think that those have the propensity to be kind of hyper-capitalism,

but they also have a different propensity to be kind of member-owned. And basically by giving these definitions and patterns, we can encourage them to go more towards the space. And just maybe a kind of more meta-note on that level is that I think that we're at a, at a stage where we can kind of put these patterns in place and say, hey, you should really look at how ownership is playing out in your DAO because right now that's critically what's being determined, both ownership within DAO's and also across DAO's, so ownership and crypto networks. And that basically by prioritizing co-ownership right now, we can make sure that it doesn't become too too lopsided in the future and that more DAWs take this to heart.

And I think one last note on that is that there's also been a criticism in the kind of overlap of DOS and Co-Ops, that the kind of mistaken belief that cooperativism or kind of co-ownership or democratic control, how can that touch the kind of base layer of global capitalism that crypto kind of glides on top of. And I really think it's about a deep understanding of how technology develops and the cultural norms and basically pushing cultural norms at the right time. And right now, Dow's and Co-Ops seem from like the recent FWB piece called what can like Dows and co-ops learn from each other, as well as, this is a long-winded response, but as well as other pieces like

Morshed Manan's earlier work on DOWs and co-ops that I think is really important, but really has only kind of come to visibility in its right time now. So he wrote this 2018 paper called Fostering Worker Cooperatives with blockchain technology. And basically in it,

he looks at the difference between a capital-managed firm and a labor-manage firm and also the colony project. So, Colony is a Dau platform. They've recently launched a new phase. And so back in 2018, Moorship was writing about this and basically saw fundamental challenges that a lot of these labor managed firms had. One was that they had difficulty bootstrapping funding, sometimes for good reasons, because it limits the amount of private investing.

They also had problems of kind of operating across different jurisdictions, and they also had problems of operating at scale. And basically, by looking kind of closer to the colony platform, he said, you know, maybe, maybe just maybe these tools that are crossed, jurisdictional, but help with kind of alignment or coherence would be able to aid cooperatives to be able to grow into a more global movement. Yeah, I think that they may sound sense. And I think perhaps, like when I think of cooperatives, like the people who are in cooperatives, like, you know, I think that there's this, there's such a rejection of, you know, of hypercapitalism or even just capitalism.

And the images that sort of blockchain and crypto conjures up, I think, in those people's mind, it's just like totally goes in opposition with, you know, what I think a lot of cooperatives' goals are. And so, you know, I think there may be also like a generational thing where like increasingly what we see as cooperatives, you know, today, like traditionally cooperatives may start forming into DAO's as, you know, the people in those that form those groups are more inclined to, you know, scale like beyond the boundaries of like, you know, national borders and jurisdictions and things like that and like seat funding and this sort of thing.

I'd like to ask you, like, maybe just take a step back here first. And like in the sort of brief history of Dow's on Ethereum, can you describe sort of the arch of like how Tao's have evolved from like, you know, the initial the Tao, which I think is the most emblematic doubt, a lot of people sort of remember as being like the first Tao to some more recent ones like Molok Dow, which inspired a lot of subsequent DAOs and now this sort of explosion of DAOs that are doing everything from buying an FT portfolios to funding projects to funding development. What does the sort of like history of DAWS look like? Yeah, I think Kia has some really great insights on this in her prehistory of Dow's article,

so definitely worthwhile people checking that out. In terms of maybe just a quick overview of the history of, say, like, Dow frameworks and technologies and obviously, I think the cryptocurrency kind of networks, Bitcoin and Ethereum and a whole bunch of others, to me, are the first kind of really widespread instantiations of kind of Dow-like organizations. In terms of, I guess, the other kind of broad category of DAO is these kind of less tightly scoped, more organizational DAO's as opposed to, of really, really tightly scoped participation in terms of being a minor validator in this protocol style DAO. Yeah, the DAO, I think, was probably the first, or at least one of the first

kind of instantiations of this type of DAO. It was essentially a mutual pool of capital that the intent was to allocate it and I think intend to, you know, attempt to kind of earn a return on it in some way. It was fairly loosely defined by design, just that I think it very much wanted that to be an emergent thing for the community to decide what they wanted to do with this pool of funding. It was a reasonably complex system, at least for the time, and that is kind of part of the reason that it ended up having,

kind of an undiscovered exploit that ultimately had it crash and burn. And so Mollock was this kind of direct reaction to that. Deliberately very simple contract with very simple mechanics that allowed participants to very easily recover their share of the capital and leave at any point in time. And the kind of key innovation for Mollick was this rage quit mechanism. So you as a member of a Mollick Dow have shares and you can redeem those shares for a relative portion of the Dow's assets at any point in time. And then around that, mechanics that allow you to do that at kind of critical moments, whenever the Dow passes a decision, you have a cool-down period where you can rage-quit if you disagree with how the decision went.

in parallel to that, a whole bunch of other Dow frameworks kind of sprung up and developed in parallel for several years, Aragon, Dowstack and Colony, were the kind of primary examples that spun up kind of around the same time. I think Colony actually started building slightly before the Dow, but has kind of been in development for a great many years. And Aragon spun up shortly after the Dow. DASDAQ similarly, I think shortly after the Dow, I think at the time it was called, oh, I'm joining a blank now on what it was. It had a different name, but nevertheless, these kind of three kind of separate approaches

to creating Dow's Aragon very much kind of designed as an operating system for DOWs. Dowstack kind of more opinionated on what the decision-making mechanism was introduced to a kind of novel decision-making mechanism in holographic consensus, which is essentially combined token-weighted voting and prediction markets to kind of modulate what the quorum for those votes should be, and then Colony introduced a really interesting reputation mechanism where you earn reputation for contributing to the organization, and the kind of organization gets to define what reputation means

within the context of that organization. I think later on, compound kind of made the realization that most of the Dow frameworks were much more complex than what they needed to govern the compound protocol, and so ended up deciding to roll their own in the compound governance framework

and the big, I don't know, innovation that they made was not really an innovation at all, but kind of the revival of a centuries-old security technique and just having a time lock, having a window of time where things are queued up before they execute and making sure that you have a way to respond to things in advance of them being executed. And compound being a kind of relatively simple,

on-chain mechanism for governance, proved to be a winning combination for a whole bunch of protocols. until gas prices started skyrocketing, at which point we started to see projects take kind of different approaches to kind of mitigating that. And I think that largely the most popular approach was to essentially push voting off-chain and kind of delegate the actual control to a kind of relatively smaller group of multi-seg signers or in compound case to delegate vote weight to larger kind of protocol politicians that

were financially incentivized to or at least had enough stake to justify the gas cost of voting on chain. I have totally glossed over the whole kind of Molek ecosystem that evolved beyond the original Molek Dow as well. The Dow House guys spun up a Molek V2 in an interface for that, and that on X-Dai, which is now Nosis Chain, became a kind of home for a whole, whole kind of class of of DOWs. And then, yeah, over the last maybe a year or so, there's been a whole bunch of more, all right, more tightly focused or kind of just different styles of DAL frameworks starting to

merge. A lot of them built on top of and around them. It's as safe as a core. And this is largely what we've been trying to, trying to standardize and accomplish with the Zodiac framework. Yeah, there's so much to unpack here. But yeah, I mean, the NOSA safe, I think, has been, like, instrumental to, you know, the success of, and I mean, the east of, of, you know, people's ability to summon DOWs, as well as, like, all of these different frameworks that you mentioned, Um, you know, one of the things that, you know, came up and, you know, researching this episode and like talking to people who, um, you know, who had been working a lot more closely than I have in like some of thousands and things like that is that there's like an abundance of tools and like, in my research, I was able to define like lots of different frameworks like, you know, um, and, um, what, what is the overlap between some of these tools and, you know, are we arriving at some standards, um, on, you know, how we, um, um, how we, um, um, how we construct DAOs and what you know is this abundance a good thing or does it end up actually like makes a bit more complicated in the end for people who are building Dow infrastructure or building

downs? I think it's definitely a good thing. I mean choice and kind of plurality of options is great because it's a it's a good kind of forcing function for for tools to develop in a way that actually serves users needs and serves people's, you know, real world requirements. It obviously makes it more complex for someone new to the space coming in and trying to figure out what to do, figure out what framework kind of works, will work well for them or kind of how they should go about making decisions. But nevertheless, I think that, yeah, that abundance of choice is a net positive. it's definitely part of what inspired Zodiac as a framework, trying to find a way to, I guess, mesh all of those things together in a way

or at least have a kind of common way for them to play nicely together. Probably worth giving a quick bit of backstory on that to help illustrate why. So in, I guess, late 2020, we started doing some research to figure out what the, essentially how we should set up the Nosis Dow. We had this desire to move a huge chunk of NOSIS's treasury into something that was community controlled

and had a couple of really key kind of requirements. One was that it would be well, well kind of proven to secure vast amounts of funding. Two, that we don't kind of unreasonably restrict participation. We don't price people out of participation. And three, that we don't kind of unreasonably. reasonably restrict our future choices. We don't lock ourselves into one particular roadmap because of a choice that we make early on.

And we realize that none of the existing frameworks really checked all three of those boxes. And the third one, I think, is relevant to what we're talking about here in terms of unreasonably restricting our kind of future choices. And so you imagine a scenario where, say, I'm brand new to the space and I come in and discover Aragon. And I say, wow, this is this amazing Deltool. I'm going to go and create a DAO. And then after six months of operating the DAO space and having built up a community using the Saragon DAO, the community decides,

hey, actually, we'd really love to use a Molek DAO. Molek is much more suitable for our style of organization until we want to migrate. And so the migration process now is essentially they've got to spin up this new Molek DAO, kind of populate it with all of the users, and then go through this kind of arduous process of making proposals to,

transfer all of the tokens and all of the systems that this Dow controls, you know, if it's the owner of any other external systems, to update any kind of external references to that Dow, probably on a bunch of websites they don't control. And so there's this kind of really monumental coordination challenge of moving from one framework to another. And so the kind of key insight that we had with Zodiac was that if we decouple your account and the mechanism that controls it, we can make that migration process much less painful, where if you imagine, as a new organization, you come in and you spin up a nosa safe, and then you say, hey, we really love Aragon. We want Aragon to be the mechanism for our Dow. Then we plug an Aragon Dau into our NOSA

safe and have the Aragon Dau control the safe. But then same thing, six months down the road, the community now decides, hey, we'd really like to be a Mollick Dow. then we simply with kind of one proposal are able to plug in this new mollick Dow as a module to our safe, unplug the Aragon Dow, and now all of a sudden we are a mollock Dow rather than Aragon Dow. None of our assets had to move. None of our kind of owner settings on any systems we control had to be updated. None of the external references to our DAO had to be updated. It all kind of happens in one step. So we, we can have much less restricted in our kind of future decisions by our current decisions just through that simple, simple decoupling of your account and control

mechanisms. Right. So essentially the accounts are and the and the governance tools and all of the other tools where people interact with the, with the Dow are sort of like decoupled in this stack. Can you describe like the, well, before we go into the stack, maybe describe what is Zodiac. And then perhaps we can talk about like the different layers in the stack and how you guys are looking to modularize a lot of those aspects. Yeah. So Zodiac is really the materialization of our, of this kind of key insight, right? That by decoupling these things, we enable a whole world of possibilities on how you, design and build DAL.

So Zodiac is really this kind of standard for and kind of set of tools built to the standard, standard for essentially how to build these composable and interoperable pieces of DOW tooling. And so when I say DOW tooling, this could be the existing kind of DAL frameworks that are kind of relatively large, monolithic, Dow-like structures, or it could be much more granular pieces of tooling for enabling specific functionality. And the nice thing with this particular way of building DAOs is the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have multiple mechanisms running in parallel being used for different types of decision-making within the context of one organization. So, yeah, the Zodiac is really just this standard for composable DAO tooling.

It's a specific kind of set of contract interfaces that if you expose them, then you're now kind of, you can play nicely with all of the other tool-A? It's a kind of library that basically has a programmable account at the center. We've built a lot of the interfaces around the NOSACEF because we know it's a trusted account and it's extendable open source, but fundamentally framework agnostic. And our tools mainly can be used through the Zodiac app on NOSASA and what I like about kind of being able to kind of combine plug and play and stack them and also connect them to other DAO platforms, so not just the SAFE, it can be a MOAA, it can be basically, basically, you know,

anything you dream of, is that it kind of, you know, we saw with recent criticisms of Web 3 that there's still platform centralization, even if there's potentially protocol decentralization. And we don't want to mimic with the platforms that we build the same type of kind of user centralization that we've seen with Web 2 or other platforms. So by kind of having participants in DAO's get used to kind of plug and play their own framework where you can add a module that allows you to connect, say, a mole of Dow, on NOSIS chains, Windows Safe, but also to maybe add a delay modifier so that you have a time before transactions can be executed. We'll go deeper into the stack. But basically being able to set these up and add qualifiers to all the mods, reorients, I think, both on a protocol level but also on a platform participant or user level, the kind of relation to the tools that we use for Dell's. So it's the idea that we can put kind of small components together to make custom setups. We're not locked into one monolithic platform, and we're not stuck there because everyone's using the same platform.

So Zodiac is really about building bridges in the same way that protocols were about decentralization. The Zodiac approach is almost kind of a platform decentralization approach to how we do governance in the future. It is really an antithesis to a lot of the kind of platform governance or democratic governance tools that we saw that over into really anticipated use cases in the past. We want to let use cases emerge and then build the bridges to them. That's really cool. So, so NOSIS Safe sits at the middle of this. And then this is integrated as a UI sort of like in the Ignosis Save interface. Can you talk about the different modules that you've built and like what people can, like what flavors that people can sort of like put into their into their into their Zodiac Dow?

Yeah. I think one key thing that the key mentioned that's worth for your writing there is that we we kind of use the safe as our prototype for this, as the prototype for. what we call the avatar, as in like the thing that represents the Dow on chain. But it is fundamentally agnostic to what that avatar is. So if someone else wanted to write some different contract to function as an avatar, to function as that programmable account at the center, they absolutely could. And we think that this is a really important thing to just be explicit about because we want this to be a kind of open standard.

We want it to be something that other people feel free to come and build on top of them. We don't want it, again, to kind of unreasonably lock people into any one specific solution. We obviously think that the safe is the best solution, and that's why we used it as our prototype. But, yeah, it's a wide open standard there, and anyone can kind of implement whatever they like. In terms of the pieces that we've built, we have a handful of additional modules. and modifiers that we've built on top of this to basically try to extend what the Dow ecosystem is able to do in some cases. In other cases, just provide what we think are some fundamental building blocks. We've deliberately avoided, for the most part, replicating work in terms of voting

and decision-making tools, because for the most part, they already exist. There's a whole bunch of really great Dow tools out there in Arragon and Molek and Dowstack and Colony and Compound. And so we didn't necessarily feel the need to try to replicate those things. But we do have a handful of other tools that we've built that, again, feel like kind of fundamental building blocks. The first one was very much kind of needs-driven, was the thing that kicked off this whole endeavor is our reality module. And it's what underlies the Safe Snap plugin for Snapshot, which basically lets you take an off-chain vote from Snapshot. and bring it on chain to trick a kind of on chain execution. So there's a bit of a confusing layer of names here in terms of snapshot,

the kind of voting platform, safe snap that they kind of plug in to snapshot, and then the reality module that lives underneath it, that then plugs into the notice of safe. There is a very good justification for the separation of all of these names, but it does lead to a bit of confusion. So maybe we can do it. I'll dive into that really quickly, but yeah, essentially, like at a high level, what this does is let you take off-chain votes and bring them on-chain. The reality module is kind of the key to this thing working, and it plugs into basically, or the way that it brings off-chain voting on-chain is via an oracle called reality.eath.

Hence the name, the reality module, because we're plugging into this reality.eath article. reality.eath is this really cool Oracle mechanism that is not very widely kind of known about or understood. So it's worthwhile diving into quickly. Essentially is an escalation game-based Oracle. So what that means is anyone can ask it a question and anyone else can come along and try to answer the question by putting down a bond. You put down a bond, set the outcome to whatever you like, and then anyone else can come and double the bond to change the outcome. Each time the bond is set, a timeout, it kind of resets. And if at any point you get to the end of the timeout, then the answer is locked in. And so you basically play this escalation game until

someone gives up and kind of loses their bonds. And the way that the game theory plays out is at the top of the escalation game, the bonds get so large that people have to coordinate around setting the bonds and thus have to kind of coordinate around which outcome is correct. And so the shelling point for the correct outcome is the, the, the, the trend. outcome. It's much easier to coordinate around a true outcome than a false one. And so at the top of the escalation game, it should always resolve to the true outcome. That being the case at the kind of bottom, there's very little incentive to set a false outcome because you're essentially just giving money to whoever comes and corrects you. So in practice, we very rarely see it move beyond

the first step where someone just comes along and sets the true outcome. I remember, so we did an episode about this in 2014 because it used to be called reality keys. And we had like, I remember first hearing about this thing and just like, this was one of the things that got me like super excited about, about the idea of blockchains and like the types of decentralized sort of autonomous decision making you could make. So yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, episode 33 of Epicenter is about this very thing. Yeah, yeah. And it's like it's been, been kind of out in the wild for ages. And it's been used for things like the Oman prediction market. It's the mechanism for resolving those outcomes for their markets.

And it was obviously a mechanism that we were comfortable with. We had seen work in practice with large volumes of a large amount of money at stake. And so that was the reason for kind of landing on this. The neat thing with it, and again, part of the reason for this confusing cacophony of names is that it could be used to bring in decisions from just about anywhere. So we chose snapshot because that pattern of kind of snapshot plus Nosa safe was already really common, but you could use it to bring outcomes from say a Discord poll or a discourse poll or a Twitter poll or you could flip coins and roll dice and whatever you want. And it could,

you know, as long as there was some reasonably easy way to kind of publicly verify the outcome, then you can use this as a way to kind of bring that information on chain. So yeah, this is kind of our first module and has already gotten a pretty good bit of adoption and there's a whole bunch of projects out in the wild using this as the way of kind of enabling cheap or free kind of voting for their participants but still kind of autonomous control over their over their assets. The next kind of more fundamental building block was essentially a piece that we took from the first version of the reality module, and it's just a delay module.

So I talked about compound, kind of reviving or reinventing this, this centuries-old concept of a time lock, and that's essentially what our delay module is. It's just like making a very small component that you can put between a safe and other modules just to delay the things that it tries to make happen. And so it creates a really good safety hatch

for if you want to give, you know, an individual or a small group of people some ability to control the assets on behalf of the safe, maybe to, as a way of kind of mitigating the overhead of voting, but you still want to have kind of the security of being able to know that we can stop these things if it turns out that they do something malicious. Then you have some mechanism by which you can decide, like, what, what it takes to override such decisions, like within our time delay. Yeah. Yeah. So you have this kind of delay period. and then there is an owner of that delay modifier,

and the owner can basically skip any transaction that gets in queued. And so if for whatever reason the owner, which is probably the Dow, might be some other mechanism, if the owner decides that it's malicious, then you can just trigger a transaction to skip that malicious transaction. Then the next one that we, the next module that we worked on is this exit module, which essentially adds a mollick-like kind of rage-quit functionality.

You designate an ERC20 token as your kind of organization version of a kind of share, and then users can redeem any amount of that ERC20 token for a kind of proportional share of the SAFEs assets. So it allows the kind of combination of a voting mechanism, a delay module and an exit mechanism allows you to create this kind of very moloch-like organization out of a bunch of kind of fundamental pieces. Then beyond that, we have a handful of others that we've built and are currently working on. I'm curious about the bridge module and the types of things you can do with the bridge module.

Yeah, okay, that's a very important omission on my part. So, yeah, the bridge module is essentially a way of importing, kind of giving control of a safe to an address on the other side of a bridge. So essentially the use case that we're imagining here is you have assets on mainnet, but mainnet's too expensive to vote on. So you want to kind of put your decision-making mechanism somewhere else. and Nosis chain formerly X-Dai has kind of, I don't know, established itself as a bit of a home for Dow's. The Dowhouse community ecosystem kind of lives there, colony, and all of its Dow's kind of live there, and then there's a whole bunch of Aragon Dows that have been deployed there, the garden's DEL ecosystem will live there. And so giving those DAWs the ability to control

assets on Mainnet is kind of a really key piece to kind of allowing them to function in this multi-layer, multi-chain ecosystem. So, yeah, essentially, the bridge module lets you set an owner and a chain ID and say, like, and a bridge module contract or bridge contract and just say messages passed from this chain by this address are allowed to pass through and control the SAFE, or control the Avatar contract. In that case, so let's say like in the case of like a contract on the Ethereum Mainnet and a a controlling address like on X-Di or even Polygon or like some other layer 2 chain, does, how do fees get paid on the main net at that point?

Because I can see like a use case here for defy where you might have some liquidity positions or you might have some defy positions on main net, but you want to control those from a different chain. In that case, who pays the fees? Yeah. So this very much depends on the. the bridge that you're using. In our case, we're using, in the examples that we've built out so far, we're using the Nosis chain arbitrary message bridge, in which case you, on the Nosis chain side,

you would have your kind of Dow, your decision-making mechanism, and it would pass, say, a message to the A&B contract on the Nosis chain side. There's a bunch of bridge articles that are watching that, and they would, when they see your message get passed in, they would then kind of race to add signatures to it. Once you have a threshold, signatures from then, you take that and you call and execute signatures function on the mainnet side and you pass in those signatures as a parameter. So someone needs to take that, but it's a, it's a public function. So all you need to do is have the signatures and you can trigger execution on the other side. Yeah, there's for the routes like notice chain to mainnet,

you have to pay for it or someone has to pay for it. Going to the other way, it's subsidized because it's trivial the cost, but because the cost on magneta much less predictable than it's harder to kind of subsidize. Longer term, what we're really hoping to develop and to see the kind of use case being is Dow's that essentially choose a chain as their kind of home chain, but then are able to spin up a nosa safe on kind of each and every other EVM compatible chain and bridge decisions to So their influence can kind of extend a long way beyond their chosen home chain. A Dow on notice chain might control a safe on main net and one on Polygon and optimism and arbitrum and anywhere else that this ecosystem is deployed to.

Interesting. So with this recent, I guess like in the last year or so, there's just like been a proliferation of EVM compatible chains or layer 2s. And how do you foresee DAOs, like very much in the spirit of what you just said, like, how do you foresee DAOs sort of spreading across those ecosystems? And what's that going to look like? Like, I don't know, let's say you, you know, you have like, I don't know, Flamingo Dow, right? Okay, well, you know, it's on main net. And it also wants to be on these other ecosystems. What's that going to look like for users?

And also, you know, perhaps technically, like, what kind of. kind of control mechanisms, would they want to implement? Would it be like centrally managed from one chain, then sort of like managing those sub-dows or like dows and other chains or are they all operating sort of horizontally at the same level? Sure. So I think as with all dows, because it's a wide open organizational design space at the moment,

there's not necessarily like one pattern or one design path that I think all DOWs will assume, other than the fact that I do strongly believe that most DOWs will be multi-chain. So I could see some example where a DOW, particularly an art collecting DOW or social DOW, maybe wants to have a presence on multiple EBM chains because maybe an artist they're collecting is primarily based on Polygon. They do governance layer on NOSIS chain, and then they secure their most kind of larger assets on Mainnet. And I think it would be really good also as a kind of like ambassador function for different Dows who have presence on different chains and communicate between them. Because at each you'll find different communities and different kind of tool sets and also strengthen

the resiliency of the bridges between them, both on technical and also a kind of community level. And even, so I'm on the board of Regen Foundation, which is Regen Network is a Cosmos Slocate chain for ecosystem services. And we've even been talking with the kind of. Yeah. And we've even been talking with the EMS team about saying about getting a Zodiac tools kind of deployed there. And I think really this kind of multi-chain presence will be hugely beneficial to the ecosystem. And also basically allow kind of different participants, and I prefer the term like participant over user, basically like different types of accessibility. So for, say, their regent network, Regen Pendendish and community staking DAWs, we'll have all different levels

of kind of access and familiarity with protocol governance. But we can really have the patterns and kind of acclimate to them and meet people where they're at, especially if it's kind of of chain-specific applications or chain-specific usability. So you think that there may be like some functions of the Dow that would exist on one chain and some functions would exist on another chain and you may have like assets being managed like on different chains. And I guess that my next question is like, what is the, what do you foresee as the role of, you know, as a as a place where, you know, lots of, you know, lots of, you know,

people are hosting DAOs, do you think that like DAOs are becoming or will become one of the predominant use cases for a nosis chain? So I think we've already seen that there and that the XI ecosystem has been really thriving with teams mentioned before like Dow House as well as the gardens Dow and OneHive communities. So in a way it already is very much a kind of Tao oriented chain. We also have things like circles which use the safe contracts at their core. So there is very much an idea of kind of like collective accounts being the identity standard on nosis chain. So I can very much see it progressing in this manner. And even, but also in the sense that I really believe that DAO should be multi-chains,

so I wouldn't want it to become a kind of monopolistic chain specifically focused on DAWS. And I think part of this can be shown in the ethos of also Nosis chain trying to make it very easy for people who wish to to be able to host their own node. So working with DapNode and others. And the way we started the conversation about chains kind of being their own Dows, I think Nosis chain would ideally like to kind of operate in that manner as well where there's a really kind of decentralized ownership of the chain itself and very strong cross-chain community as well. So taking a step back here and coming back to sort of like, you know, Dau's as paradigms in society, I wonder what types of, you know, existing structures you think are right for transformation or transition. into like Dow form?

Sure. So I think one, we already touched on in co-ops, but I don't know if it's necessarily from the kind of theory of change where it's like co-ops themselves transform into Daos, but more that these kind of principles of existing organizations become more familiar among our ecosystem. I also think one thing that Daos happen to be very good at at the moment, and often not always to the best ends, is pooling capital

or pooling some type of resources. So I laugh because I'm thinking of Spice Dow, which recently bought some IP, or thought they bought some IP. But they tend to be good vehicles. You see Constitution Dow. You also see things like Climate Dow. And I think that there needs to be a lot more thoughtful consideration

around the kind of what you would call Dow governance or corporate governance of these vehicles. But you see it already I saw emerge yesterday like a hot old Tao, which is aiming to be, like a PAC, so a political action committee specifically to look at U.S. regulatory landscape and crypto and specifically kind of advise policy positions. So basically looking at these organizations that often need a certain amount of capital to be bootstrapped and to be effective, DAOs are very kind of natural tools for these organizations, right? In terms of having the best

possible outcomes, we also see this for things like the Friassan Dow and other things of basically being able to kind of quickly bootstop resources to a narrowly scoped cause. But I think, and what I'm hoping for is that it becomes more variegated, where we aren't necessarily looking at financial capital of the resource that's easily fooled. But as more kind of different, I mean, this is a somewhat cringe and complicated term, but natural capital or other forms of capital become legible on chain, but they can be really good ways to confirm mutual aid for different communities, or to confer kind of large amounts of access to different people,

not only kind of gathering but also distributing. So I think kind of next-gen DAOs will have to focus more on the distribution rather than the kind of gathering. Talking about distribution, I think like one of the, you know, one of the things here that comes to my mind is, you know, how DAOs can sort of distribute capital in, you know, The real economy, right? So like the friction between like the crypto economy and like traditional banking still remains.

And I think like if there was less friction there, it would be easier for Daos to, you know, perhaps finance a lot more things. Sort of like outside of the, you know, the crypto ecosystem, which is like I think a lot of Dow's are helping to contribute to in finance today. what are some ways that we can hope to see Dow's have an improved or like, yeah, improved interaction with the real economy and like what are some of the barriers there that need to be broken down for like a more generalized type of application? Yeah, I mean, I think in terms of barriers that need to be broken down, There's just relatively few established kind of pathways for, for essentially legal personhood for a DAO or the ability for a,

for a DAO to, to kind of tangibly own real world assets or interact with the real world. That says there's a handful of, I guess, trailblazers of DAOs that have gone out actually kind of established some kind of real world entity that's kind of wrapping or otherwise kind of interacting with the Dow. And then also a handful of that have kind of explicitly gone the other direction and become these kind of illegal entities and kind of define very, very well-structured participation agreements between members to account for the fact that they are deliberately not seeking, kind of incorporation or seeing kind of recognition by one jurisdiction explicitly.

I think there's, well, there's been some really great efforts by, again, a whole bunch of different actors. One in particular has been really cool as the Kuala Model Law, which is kind of seeking to create a model law that different jurisdictions can kind of adopt in order to find a kind common ground on how to treat these kind of illegal DAOs. So probably some jurisdictions starting to adopt that or something similar to that is a really great first step to enable and kind of really widespread legal personification or at least kind of legal interaction or interaction between kind of dows and a lot of the

kind of real world. But also in terms of people, try of lazy. or projects trai-blazing, there's projects like Opelis and Sporkdale that have kind of gone the opposite direction and very kind of explicitly said, let's kind of set up Colorado limited cooperatives, limited cooperative associations and actually kind of bake those, bake the mechanisms of the kind of Dow structures that we create into the operating agreements and then bake the constraints of the DAO into, or the constraints of the,

the legal kind of wrapper that we're choosing into our kind of DAO structures and kind of try to marry the two. And, yeah, I don't know that one is necessarily that they kind of right or the wrong way to do it. It's interesting to see kind of both throws being pushed forward in parallel by different groups. And I think there's probably pros and cons of both. Obviously, the idea of spinning out.

up a legal wrapper, I think gives you more immediate access to real world things than the alternative where you're kind of waiting on some jurisdiction to create some kind of recognition. Yeah, I mean, I think the legal rapper that some people and law firms have been able to sort of come up with is perhaps like a stepping stone to something that's a lot more, a lot more organic to the to the to the to the to the to the structure and like the functioning of a Tao and so like that paradigm and so I think like what what's going on Wyoming is probably like the most interesting are there are other places that that you're aware of where jurisdictions like that the other jurisdictions that have started discussing or

looking into you know doubt personhood Yeah, I know the Volksopoulos are working pretty hard with the legislators in Colorado to set up something pretty similar. I say similar and they probably would be scowling at me now for saying similar because I think there's a whole bunch of issues that they see with the Wyoming legislation and a lot of what they're doing in Colorado is kind of a direct response to that. but I guess kind of the the goal is to create kind of yeah, an outcome where DALs can have a

reasonable kind of legal personification that I guess mirrors the kind of value assumptions that a lot of web three organizations make or that kind of has

similar kind of value alignment I guess another example that I'm aware of is the Vermont legislation, which actually was preceded Wyoming as well. The Vermont's blockchain-based LLC is another kind of legal wrapper that you can spin up for similar purposes. D.OG pioneered that. And I think maybe in both of those cases, in the Vermont, case in the Wyoming case, they really just kind of show the kind of flexibility of LLCs in general. Like really, you can make an LLC, you can kind of, you can construct an LLC that does just

about whatever you want. And so it's more about, I think, how much, how willing you are to go and do the kind of bespoke work to, to create an LLC that functions as you want it to. Yeah, I think, I think in Europe, you know, it's probably a little bit more complex. I've been talking with people who are trying to find ways to create some form of rapper that would allow, like, you know, Taoist to have legal personhood, but it's not quite there yet. And I don't think that if Europe will be at the forefront of this innovation. Typically, the way that I've seen people approach it in Europe has been through like a foundation model, right? or you would have, I think generally people like to, or tend to prefer like a Swiss

foundation, but there's a handful of other jurisdictions where people would spin up some kind of foundation. And that foundation would kind of have no direct tie to the Tao itself, but would be kind of, as part of its operating agreement, bound to decisions made by the Dow, bound to act in the best interests of the Tao, and would usually just kind of act on behalf of the Tao as opposed to being kind of directly tied to it in the way that the uh the blockchain LLC uh blockchain um based LLC or the Wyoming Dow or this kind of up-and-coming um Colorado-based uh the legal wrapper would end to kind of more directly marry the two yeah no I mean like the Swiss

foundation models I think that has has been great for for a lot of organizations and lots of I'm speaking more specifically about like the the Eurozone because yeah there there are some barriers I think still like for you know Dow's that need to operate and you know sort of like be fiscally tied to to the Eurozone being being in Switzerland so I'm hopeful that things will come out of the Eurozone soon as we as we wrap up here like what what kinds of things are you most excited about, you know, so like upcoming things that you see in the, you know, sort of Dow tooling space and, you know, where, where do you think like Dow cooperation and organizations will be in like four or five years from now as we look back?

Sure. So I know one thing as a team we're really excited about is taking private voting to Daos. We've seen that both in the kind of bidding and voting process that privacy is really fundamentally important to any kind of voting. our decision-making process, especially at scale. So we're excited about Macy and using zero-knowledge proofs basically to bring private voting to DOWS. And I think that that will exponentially kind of explode the decision-making and kind of realms that DAO is operate in,

because you have a fundamentally different dynamic and one that is fundamentally more aligned with our existing kind of political and legislative systems. So that's super exciting. I'm also very keen on a kind of token design space and token experimentation. And whether that's on a specific contract level or a token standards level, I'm somewhat embrivolent about.

But we've seen a lot of emphasis put on coin voting, right, for DAOs. And my feeling is that we've kind of fallen into this pattern primarily because it was the easiest way to gather a signal from a large amount of people or a large amount of holders that you believe are some way invested in the outcome of this decision. And that it happened kind of almost by default as a way to easily signal large groups. And now we've seen the kind of pitfalls and kind of collusion as well as just general social norms that coin wedding produces its fundamentally bureaucratic governance. So I think as we think more about tokens as separate kind of unbundling them from voting rights, we can look at them as kind of one person, one vote and other governance rights. And also basically, yeah, plus coin voting is cheap civil resistance.

So there's questions of how we design civil resistance and other things into basic kind of voting systems. And whether it's token design of thinking through tokens as governance rights, but also thinking through tokens as something essentially very different, not even reputation, something else that doesn't exist or doesn't have a kind of clear analog in our current political systems. I'm really excited to see what could come from there. And yeah, the general forms of decision making that that produces between private voting and kind of non-coin voting alternatives on cheaper chains will be amazing. Yeah, I'd mirror that.

Really excited to see kind of secret voting start to take off, start to be more accessible. Hopefully we can help. We have a really strong desire to help, you know, fix that problem, help, help bring that into the world. I think the other thing that I'm excited about is what I talked about at the start. Like this design space of having desired out. be the kind of emergent result of uncoordinated inputs. So mechanisms like quadratic funding that enable that across a variety of different contexts. So really excited to see that design space kind of take off,

see what other problems people are able to solve without resorting to kind of explicit coordination around those problems. We see a lot of discussion in the DOSP. about kind of defeating Mollock. And usually people's suggestions to defeating Mollock means stacking more coordination on top of situations or solutions, which is kind of paradoxical because obviously, Mollock is the god of coordination failure. So the more kind of layers of coordination you have, the more opportunity there is

the failure of that coordination. So I think like designing systems that explicitly require uncoordinated, inputs or kind of create the outcome that you want from uncoordinated inputs is the real key to us actually defeating Molek. Yeah, I'd like to add a short thing to that. I think it's really interesting. I think also a little bit less of a kind of automated approach, but still really relevant. If you look at earlier tools for online voting like Lumio per se that were developed by

the centralized network of people, it was funny chatting with the Lumio. co-founder Rob because he said basically he considers kind of voting like the last ditch attempt at a group of people to come to consensus like if you have to actually take something to a vote it means that there's um basically dissensus among the group uh so by by i love the framing of like uncoordinate inputs and the kind of potential actions also i think there's too much emphasis potentially put on a coordination problem because coordination can be to equally ill ends um so basically how we like we need more tools to come to kind of coherent cultural consensus

and then explicitly make those actions happen and there doesn't always need to be a vote or explicit kind of formal recognition in between that except in the kind of historical lens of how that decision came to be. So I really appreciate more fuzziness brought into kind of centralized autonomous systems. That's really interesting

and a great note to end on but before we go, where can people fly? find out more about Gnosis guild and Zodiac and all the tools that you've built and yeah, just get more involved with everything that you guys

are doing. Sure. So you can find us on Twitter at Nosis Guild and we also have a blog NOSISGELD-MIRAXYZ where we publish about the products we're updating as well as just general thoughts on DAO's and coordination. We're also

in the midst of working on a NOSIS Guild wiki, which will house basically all our product documentation and our approach, but also have a section of the wiki that aims to collate a lot of DAO best practices or kind of a DAO pattern language of basically how people, if they find themselves in certain situations with DAO's, e.g., you know, your DAO is at this size, you're using these tools, what are good patterns and voting tools and decision-making mechanisms you can use. And we'd actually like to open up this wiki to other community contributors in the ecosystem at large. So if that sounds like a project that

any listeners interested in, definitely get in touch about that. I hope you're watching. Great, and we'll link to all that and your fantastic writing in the show notes. Aran and Kia, thanks so much for joining me today. It's been a fascinating conversation and hope to have you on again at some point. Cheers. Thanks for having us, Sebastian. Thank you. Super lovely. Thank you for joining us on this week's episode.

We release new episodes every week. You can find and subscribe to the show on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, SoundCloud, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you have a Google home or Alexa device, you can tell it to listen to the latest episode of the Epicenter podcast. Go to Epicenter.tv slash subscribe for a full list of places

where you can watch and listen. And while you're there, be sure to sign up for the newsletter, so you get new episodes in your inbox as they're released. If you want to interact with us, guests or other podcast listeners, you can follow us on Twitter.

And please leave us a review on iTunes. It helps people find the show and we're always happy to read them. So thanks so much, and we look forward to being back next week. No.