We would love to get some feedback on our PIG RFC we posted last week, Plain Art Text. We’d like to ask:
Is the scope of our proposal clear?
Is the topic interest (art speak) too vague or too narrow a social code to focus, or does it allow us the necessary flexibility to think creatively about the nature of (and levels of) protocolization?
Any other feedback on our proposal’s content and/or format?
If you have time soon for an office hours meeting in the coming days, we’d love to hear more of your thoughts.
Team NatexNate here. We’d love your feedback around our RFC. The area that we’re focusing on is both basic and global in nature and we had some discussion between us over the scale at which we should focus but decided that the displacement of firms as the primary economic value generator was a substantial enough “protocol disruption” that it made sense to focus there.
Are there any gaps or oversights in our overall idea and approach?
How elaborated would do you think that a revised protocol in this area would need to be, given that it’s a big concept?
Here’s our RFC: Value Creation: From Firms to Digital Stigmergy
@timbeiko@Venkat we’d really appreciate your feedback on the composable commerce protocol RFC. As with many other proposals, there are a few different areas that we could focus on, and we are interested in hearing your input on whether one of these would be more suitable than another. We would also appreciate feedback on the outputs we have proposed producing.
I would like feedback on this RFC, which is recently revised.
The original was too long with an overwrought section on multi-polarity, although it is still a part of the vision.
This distillation emphasizes what Lavender can do for digital nomads, and is implementation agnostic. Contexts for the protocol will be explored during development.
We wanted to explore a protocol of collaboration, “how people create things together” and chose to focus on the area of collaborative media IP. Would love to know if this seems like a good angle, or should we be more specific and tangible.
Scope: is our proposal too broad or too focused? Did we get the granularity of the problem space—and consequently the solution protocol—right?
Web2 vs web3: aside from the success vision section, the RFC doesn’t especially align to web2 vs web3; should we target web3 use cases and prototyping more strongly? (And if so, would you like to see any particular success vision use case/outcome focused on?)
Evangelisation and judging: do you have any suggestions for better evangelisation and output judging methods? We feel this is the weakest part of the current RFC.
