Seed Club Logo

Twitter Icon

Email Icon

Copy Icon


podcast image
Apple LogoSpotify LogoYouTube Logo

Jango — Allocating Treasuries

Jango is a developer at Juicebox, a protocol for community fundraising. Web3 coordination often exists at the intersection of large treasuries. Innovative means of capital allocation is one of the most promising crypto design spaces. Jess and Jango discuss automated funding mechanisms, the use case for frequent proposal and discourse periods, and how this could unlock more DAO experiments.

Show Notes
& Relevant Links

Jango Resources:

Links & People Mentioned:

Time - Stamps:

0:00 - Intro
0:59 - Jango
2:54 - What is Jukebox Good For?
5:32 - Jukebox Back Story - CLIP?
9:43 - Speculation
13:50 - Funding
23:24 - Making Tough Decisions
28:25 - Fire Tweet
32:39 - Wrap Up


Jess Sloss 0:00
Jango, welcome to club.

Jango 0:01
Happy to be here.

Jess Sloss 0:02
So we were just talking that we had this opportunity to very briefly meet IRL in New York this past week, which was lovely. And yet we had no time to talk about anything beyond the brief panel we were on. So I'm really excited to get into this with you. Let's kick it off. How do you introduce yourself? And what are you working on?

Jango 0:18
Yes, the panel was great. You're a pro panelist, I could tell that was not your first time doing it massively. On the other hand, that was my first time actually in public, as Jango, which is really interesting. I absolutely loved it. I'm a very in real life person. So bridging those two or figuring out how to do so is something I'm very much looking forward to continue doing.

Jess Sloss 0:40
Well. It did not look like that was your first panel just so yeah, just FYI.

Jango 0:43
Thank you, a piece together Juicebox protocol over the past couple of years, in consequence to another project I was working on, really was trying to figure out a better business model for software projects, in general, intended towards contracts, as a way to express those, yeah, Juicebox? protocol was deployed with a DAO in mind or with governance in mind, or with anything that really happened afterwards in mind, it was just a toolbox, on top of which I could then build abstract software projects and just plug in fees into so that I didn't have to think about business model as I was thinking about product and community and everything I was actually interested in. And it was doing so with some of my best friends and most talented friends. And over time, folks started building on it almost right away. And so my job has largely been to support folks building on it and making sure that the the funding system is, is resilient and sturdy and safe. So that folks can offload a lot of their engineering needs to the protocol, and focus on community and on the expression of what they want to do.

Jess Sloss 1:47
I remember some of the earliest days, like that exact moment when he I think pushed it live, like we had a conversation at FWB or something along those lines. And it's been really amazing just to see the reaction to it. And I mean, so many notable projects have built on top of it. I also think that it's a first look can be slightly confusing for some people, because there is a lot going on. But the more time I spent with that tool, the more becomes pretty apparent that it's really good for some things. I'm wondering like, what do you see Juicebox that being really good for?

Jango 2:15
Two things, I think that it does really well or has done really well it served a purpose for is for projects that want to quickly fundraise a lot of money for a particular cause that's very scoped and very apparent, very memorable, provides a very great interface, which I think it's mostly shout out to the interface and not the protocol for creating an experience that people can go to, and click a button contribute funds received tokens in return that will give them access to a refund, if the project ends up not going anywhere, they can see everyone else contributing to it and contribute a memo or something of the like to the movement, and track all the accounting of the project in one place. It's really strong from an aesthetic perspective of a place that feels like it's doing what you're there to do, right, which is partake in a movement. It's also very strong for projects operating over time, which is kind of what it was built to do more or less. And so it operates around this idea of a funding cycle, which just is a preset number of rules, one of which is how much from the treasury, you are wanting to disperse to pre configured addresses. And you can basically just set a number of addresses and forget them. So if you're a developer running a project as I was, someone comes in and wants to do community management, and maybe someone else comes in and wants to help with operations, let's say from the very beginning, you have no structure, but you know, you want to develop structure, then you can have a soft commitment between you guys to commit, let's say one ETH each out of a treasury that perhaps has zero at first, but hopefully can accommodate up to what's needed over time. Let's say you want 1 ETH every 14 days, then you can set that. And then every 14 days, if there is sufficient amount of funds in the Treasury to disperse to the preconfigured addresses, anyone on the internet can go in and actually send the funds over from the community treasury to the pre configured addresses. That way, if you care about the project, if you depend on it for business reasons or whatever, you can just put funds in the treasury and know that they are going to these specific places and any overflow funds, any funds in the Treasury in excess of what's meant to be distributed during the funding cycle will serve as a Project Runway. And you as a token holder have access to claim back the overflowed funds, if you no longer believe in the project, or you disapprove of how the funds are being spent.

Jess Sloss 4:35
And there's sort of an aspect of token swapping or rewards that come from this. So folks are putting in capital and that are getting back a token that gives them some sort of governance or at least future claim. Can you explain how that mechanism works?

Jango 4:48
Yeah, this is a really important piece and I think it's important to think about why Juicebox was built in the first place. So I'll give a little backstory here. The original problem I was trying to solve was it doesn't make much stands for software to charge a transaction fee like traditionally pre blockchains to charge a transaction fee or monthly subscription or something like that, because each user account but each like unit of software is basically free for the publisher, right. So you're basically paying towards a pot that is being leveraged for arbitrary reasons, probably paying staff and standing up servers standing up databases and the like. But once you have the infrastructure set up, then the unit economics don't really justify charging per unit. So what I was trying to do is create a system where a project owner can specify upfront what they need to sustain the service. So you can imagine I have a few databases, maybe have to spin up some servers to accommodate current traffic, I want to pay myself X and maybe a colleague wants to pay themselves Y you can come up with a number. And that's the number that you need to sustain the service. Let's say it's $20,000, every month, if I were to state that number upfront, and maybe I have users who are paying a suggested amount, or a required amount, let's say $10 a month or whatever, at a certain point, you're going to start to exceed the amount that you need. And so anything in excess of your needs can then be refunded back to those users paying, essentially pushing everyone's price towards zero as the service grows. So whether I'm servicing 100 people or 1000 people, my database server and labor costs are probably going to be fixed, it then can't really justify spending on growth, like arbitrary Facebook ads, or Instagram ads, or whatever. Because that's just forcing my users to pay more for something over time, which doesn't really make much sense. When in reality, your users are the ones with the word of mouth, they're the ones building community. So they should benefit from growth. So price should tend towards zero, as a network grows, and the team building, it should have leverage over what they need to sustain the service over time. But it shouldn't require some secret sauce of business model or whatever. So the token mechanism is basically a mechanism to solve the rebate process, right? As a user, if I pay $10 to a treasury, then I'll get a commensurate amount of tokens back, let's say the current issuance rate is 1 million tokens per ETH, contributed to the Treasury and everyone who pays any amount of ETH into the treasury will receive a commensurate amount of tokens back, such that when the project passes its funding requirements, I can then redeem my tokens and get part of my funds back essentially pushing my price toward zero, the more and more funds that are in the treasury, because a product only needs X to solve its problems. So everyone's price should be pushed toward zero. And then comes the aspect of okay, well, if I don't want to get my price pushed towards zero, and I instead want to support this project over time, then I can leave my funds in there, keep my tokens and the project can keep using any leftover funds for subsequent projects or for runway or have they want to see it. But that's the only baked in function for tokens in the in the Juicebox protocol. And you can set redemption rate to zero, meaning tokens no longer have this redemption quality, at which point, you can treat the tokens however you want. They can just be ceremonial, they can be a utility for future airdrops, you can use them for governance, as you were saying, which a lot of projects built on Juicebox have been put, it's really up to the project.

Jess Sloss 8:11
Yeah, I love this framing, because I think, you know, we just come through this rather large speculative mania, and most projects we're optimizing for, for speculation to some degree. And I think like, the traditional way that we fund startups is very much that right, like, we'll put a bunch of money up front, and the team's gonna go out and build value. And hopefully that value does 100x 1,000x, whatever the money put in, and that speculation really drove investment and innovation in the world as we know it right now. But your starting point is very different. It's like how do we get capital to go build a thing? And I think what's really interesting from the core use case, and maybe specifically looking at how Juiceboxis funding itself is that really it is about users and builders coming together to pool resources. So maybe social capital or effort and financial capital to an end, which is the existence of this thing. I'm curious if you think about the token holders in Juicebox, specifically, or maybe more broadly, like, is there a speculative piece here? Are people speculating on the future of Juicebox? Are people using this protocol in the ways that you've sort of initially intended.

Jango 9:11
I'm sure it's been a mixture of both over time as information and disinformation spread, like we have a few contributors who are on Discord, who are in as many places as they can be trying to teach how Juicebox DAO leverages the Juicebox protocol to sustain the development of the protocol. But a lot of folks have come in and put money in the Juicebox treasury expecting a similar outcome to other projects that have experimented on Juicebox protocol, just because it's on the same protocol, they should behave in similar ways. Therefore, by speculated successfully on one project, then I should just go to the next big project and put money there and expect similar returns. But the Juicebox protocol is it's just a series of levers like three levers that you can configure on a sliding scale. And that really determines the inputs and outputs are treasury. So what happens when someone sends funds to your treasury and under what conditions funds are allowed to leave your treasury and in Juicebox DAOs case, we issue JBX tokens outwardly, when funds come into the treasury either by clicking the button on the website or by building projects on the ecosystem, which incur a withdraw membership fee, which goes directly into the Juicebox treasury via the same contractual mechanism and issues JBX outwardly to projects. And that issuance fee is decreasing at a fixed rate called the discount rate, which is also a JB protocol lever. So there is a slight incentive to contribute sooner rather than later. But that's just to kind of counteract the risks being taken on by folks entrusting the protocol with funds earlier on. And the team with funds when it's harder to come by, there are a few aspects of Juicebox that encourage slight more risk taking, which I think is the healthy form of speculation, where, you know, if you are approaching a project, and you are assuming more risks than someone purchasing a project later on in the future, as long as we're on the same page, and articulate the risks and the trade offs, we should come to an understanding over time that someone in the future should still be willing to participate in the ecosystem, knowing exactly what everyone who came before did. And knowing that those in the future from themselves will also be approaching it at a similar risk of decay over time. That being said that issuance rate and the discount rate are adjustable on a per funding cycle bases in both of those should tend towards neutral overtime, in my opinion of this.

Jess Sloss 11:35
It's like if you want this thing to exist, and to continue to exist, put money here. And so you can imagine there being a it's an there's a hole that's in the ecosystem that's developed around this. And what I think is so interesting is how it's a unique starting place that Juicebox started from, and unique types of organizations are sort of being built on top of this, and this specific one that, you know, I think diving into how you guys are using this protocol itself for your operations, I think super helpful. You know, it very much is like the word risk taking and speculation very much doesn't fit the description of what this is because I think there's a big difference between me investing into something and me also wanting to see a tool exists because it's going to be beneficial to my business or beneficial to an ecosystem, etc. So I think my guess is that people are still confused about that to some degree. But I think over time, when you're building here as a potential to be a whole new type of category of organization that has come out of this somewhat unique primordial ooze of what your initial pain point. So I found that very helpful and even further in my understanding of what you're building here.

Jango 12:37
There's lots of work to do with education, education is an onboarding, all those user flows are things we keep coming back to. And every now and then we stumble upon a like an aha moment of how to refactor some explanatory thing. But yeah, I think that's the name of the game is keep fostering new ideas and keep touching things up over time?

Jess Sloss 12:56
Well, I think that examples do the best job of communicating, you know, if we look at some of the chips that you guys have made it over how you're using this tool and how you're operating, I think that might be informative. So if we look at the Juicebox DAO page, here, I'm noticing that there's actually a number of groups that also are sort of their sub projects on Juicebox, can you maybe unpack how whether it's a flow of funds or how Juicebox protocol is using Juicebox to fund its development?

Jango 13:23
Yeah, this is the coolest thing for me is being able to work on the tool that the organization depends on for its own part, right. It's what keeps things beating. And these funding cycles are like the heartbeats that happen every now and then. And it started off with just when it was deployed, it was a few payouts coming out from the treasury to the few of us who were around contributing on day one, and there were no funds in the treasury, obviously. So we were relying on trying to communicate what we're doing so that we couldn't get paid out in the first place, and overtime funds in the treasury accumulated. And we found a way for people to come in and start proposing payouts for themselves in recognition of the work that they were already doing for the protocol. So as a way for Juicebox DAO to acknowledge the work being done. As that group of participants and contributors grew, we started to articulate this idea of the DAOs immune system, which is just the current contributors willingness to accept new contributors or encourage new contributors to support new contributors as they were coming in, while also flaring up in slightly becoming inflammatory when there was something we had never seen before or dealt with before, so that we could really come to understand it before accepting it as part of the ecosystem. Part of what happened in that process is a good example to start is looking at the WAGMI Studios project. So
WAGMI Studios is a project that runs on the Juicebox protocol. They think it manages payouts to three people think there's three core contributors there's mieos, sage, and Burtula. They essentially created this banni character, and do a lot of the cultural elements that we've come to know and associate with Juicebox. But I really just this offshoot group of people who were once paid directly from Juicebox DAO, recognizing that they can better manage a funds for animators and one off illustrators in the like from their own treasury. So instead of going to Juicebox for a more formal proposal process of distributing to a new contributor or whatever, it's not worth burdening the Juicebox DAO treasury and community with each of these small requests. Instead Juicebox DAO just pays out a regular amount to the WAGMI Studios treasury, which is basically just a payout from Juicebox. The Juicebox protocol within the distribution limit that you set from your treasury on a per funding cycle basis, you can route splits directly to other Juicebox projects to we're constantly filling up the WAGMI Treasury and in response, getting their tokens as I was alluding to earlier, and then from there, they can manage their funds in payouts with with shorter funding cycles, or no funding cycles at all, essentially a more informal way with with less governmental processes, just to get shit done faster. And that leaves them the autonomy also work with other projects in the ecosystem and outside the ecosystem to create animations, illustrations, characters, what have you, and receive funds compensation into their treasury. So it's not just a sub DAO of Juicebox DAO, they are very much their own entity. And Juicebox DAO is a customer of in many ways. It also allows Juicebox DAOs not to own this banni brand. It's very much something that people have come to know as Juicebox. But Juicebox is kind of this a amorphous, permeable DAO that is mostly tasked with just supporting people as they build community fund treasuries from startup to scale, and wag me has pronounced this Bandy brand as Juicebox. And I think we've all benefited from that. But it leaves room for others to come in and create similar aesthetics that builds off of what's currently there, a similar things has happened with the front end contributors, and the community management contributors and the folks building the metaverse aspect of Juicebox, which are all things that were never pre conceived or planned, they just kind of emerged from this, this organism and have found their way to their own individual Treasury so that they can accommodate servicing anyone, not just Juicebox DAO specifically.

Jess Sloss 17:28
That mechanism, sort of the emergence of sub DAOs within this organization. And I think that the fact that you know, you don't even call it sub DAOs, necessarily, and maybe in the broader ecosystem, we're talking about pods and sub DAOs, themselves sort of complex thing. But really, what you're talking about here is sort of the management of funds to groups who are creating value and also create a sort of like this broader degree of agency and those folks that are not just sub units of Juicebox DAO but their service providers, too, that can then also provide services to others. And seems like it's a more elegant approach, then maybe how many people are thinking about this right now? It does lead me to a question like, how does the DAOs decide who gets funded?

Jango 18:06
Yeah, it doesn't always work out as expected. I will also add that it's a massive experiment. And each of these communities that have sprouted to manage their own treasury has had their own life cycle of ups and downs and complexities and growth pains of their own. So it's not the solution. It's just a way of experimenting with this open accounting and like the management of funds over time, the way in which these proposals take place actually end up in routing funds from Juicebox DAO to other projects and other individuals is through an emergent governance process that was drafted I think, initially by a few of us led by Nicholas towards I think, soon before constitution DAO and everyone constitution DAO was happening we were very grateful to have spent the previous month really focusing in on laying the roots of a governance process that we all felt good about Juicebox DAO prior to Constitution DAO was way smaller than it is today. We had tailwinds from Shark DAO and that community, which was an absolutely great community and introduced me to a lot of ideas and a lot of governance processes from that and all honesty Juicebox matured way slower than a lot of the projects built on top of Juicebox tile, had a treasury at the very beginning that was outpacing Juicebox by a lot and then shark DAO obviously outpaced Juicebox by a lot. And so these projects had an urgency for crisper governance systems way before Juicebox DAO did itself. We weren't managing many funds beforehand. So that wasn't the problem of the day was like, how are we going to govern funds that we don't even have yet? It was how can we help projects build safe fundraisers essentially, as Juicebox DAO started to evolve this need we look to a lot of projects who are building using the similar tools based on similar protocol and we ended up with a person in our Discord name unicorn Neo, who came in hot and he had ideas, but he was like very crisp and concise with these ideas. And he wanted to participate in shaping this governance thing, but not own any of it, and we had a few other contributors who are still around zoob. Nicholas, as I said earlier, and Philip who were eager to absorb a lot of these ideas and shape them into something that felt doable, that we can basically MVP and start off with. So the system that we currently have in place, it's evolved from there via ratification from JBX holders, which initially was fairly informal, and then evolved into snapshot votes, and now has evolved into a snapshot votes that gets committed on chain, a nine and 14 multisig is every two weeks, so we run on two week funding cycles. So we have an opportunity at every two weeks to change how much funds from the Treasury you're gonna get distributed the next two weeks. And so we've created a governance cycle that matches this timeframe. So every two weeks, folks can submit proposals that adhere to a very simple template. Once the proposals are in by friday at a certain time period, then a temperature check period starts that lasts currently three days, a bunch of discord threads get created for each proposals. At this point, we've automated that process, shout out contributor jiggly gems, and as Dr. Nance for governance that has really, really helped automate these things. And it's continuing to improve in that way. And so then in each thread, the community can come in and critique and give feedback and help to amend the proposals. And then once the three days are up, and a soft discord thumbs up thumbs down vote has been conducted and reached a quorum, that's again specified in the ratified governance operations document, then proposals go to snapshot, and then JBX holders will ratify the proposals with a 66% vote, at which point all the like the deltas of payouts for the upcoming cycle will get crunched down into one reconfigure file, and that reconfigure file will be put on chain by a contributor to basically change the upcoming funding cycle. So let's say the upcoming funding cycle starts in a week, the file will be uploaded multisig signers will make sure that all the numbers add up and then sign it. And then once things are good to go, then we have a three day delay period. So we can't change anything, everyone knows that in three days, the new funding cycle is going to start and these are the parameters it's going to have. And once it rolls over, then anyone can go in and click the distribute transaction, which will actually move the funds from the treasury into this pre configured payouts. But all that starts about two weeks prior and during the proposal delivery process, and then the community coming together to deliver it interesting.

Jess Sloss 22:29
So okay, the thing that so many DAOs have had to manage over the last few weeks and months is sort of a souring funding environment. And it's forced many to make some pretty tough choices. And out of that, we've seen that, you know, it's much easier to say yes, to give money out or to fund things than it is to say no to things. How has that been represented within Juicebox? Like, have you had to make tough decisions? And if so, how did that go down?

Jango 22:53
It's a very good point and a very true point, it's easier to make friends than it is to be real with one another. But I would argue that part of really substantial friendships that last are taking each other very seriously and working with one another to make ourselves the best that we can be something that I look for, I can only speak for kind of myself as part of this organism and part of this process. I try to give feedback that is concise in set the tone, and then folks around add to the conversation and we all kind of learned from one another along the way. But I think we do take this DAO immune system fairly seriously. At times, it's been looser, and at times it's been tighter. I think the broader macro conditions definitely play into that. I think we each really care about the thesis like why is the spending necessary right now, when someone comes in and can articulate why an idea or a body of work is necessary right now and why they are the best candidate to take on that work. It sets a precedent that will allow future contributors to follow in makes it harder for them to create looser precedents over time, which is something that we have to be very careful about every step of the way, we're kind of creating precedents for the future. So if we do anything different than we did in the past, there has to be a decent reason for doing it differently. One of the things that we've held true since the very beginning as we're not paying out in a salary sense. So this isn't trying to recreate a web2-like contractual agreement between employer and employee. The DAO is simply just recognizing work being done, and supporting folks so that they can hold these responsibilities that they are committing to in earnest, right. They don't have to split their time as ruthlessly as they may have had to if the DAO weren't supporting certain efforts, but the idea that the display of work should come before payouts are made is something that can feel uncomfortable to a lot of people especially coming from a world of unpaid internships and the like. But I think those developers and contributors who get it, they really get it, you know, and it's, it's something that we have to take very seriously and it might be easier to approach given a body of developers like working on protocols and writing on tests and writing front ends, like we can all look to each other and acknowledge like, damn, awesome, incredible people doing some incredible work. And I very much respect that. But as we brought into multi-disciplinary things around, we still try to maintain the attitude of, we need to be a place for the best developers to feel comfortable contributing, on their own accord, and feel the flexibility and autonomy to come and go as they please, I'm a big fan of folks doing exactly what they want to do not feeling tied to anything, except for being around other folks who feel similarly. That's the space I want to be in. When I develop stuff. That's kind of the ecosystem. I want to be coming at this as a developer. So I'm trying to kind of breed a and cultivate a place where other developers who work and learn from are around and contributing, it's tough man, you know, because everyone communicates differently. Everyone's coming at it from a different perspective, different point of view at a different point in time. Like right now, we're pretty stuffed up. There's a lot of incredible people here developing stuff, if someone new or to show up in the discord even with like a, no one really looks at a resume of like what you've done in the past. It's all about like, what have you been contributing lately to the Juicebox DAO. But even if someone were to come in, it'd be tough to find a very clear pocket of responsibility right now, like so much is covered. So folks would have to come in and really express an idea like a new idea very cleanly and like captivate people's attention to really create space for themselves. And I think ultimately, that's a healthy thing. But it's something we can't let spoil. I think we're all familiar with a system in motion that's created entitlements and created comfort and the like. And I think that's definitely not the end result here. I think the end result here is to create a work order for yourself, that's going to help Juicebox DAO get to a more sustainable place, and then tend towards zero expenses over time as the work is done. And the protocol has solidified to a point where the risks are well known. And the utilities are well understood and documented in a lot of the subsequent risks and opportunities are pursued at a different layers and not no longer at the Juicebox DAO layer. So expenses can theoretically tend toward zero. And funding cycles tend towards larger chunks of time. So we're only making decisions maybe like a few times a year even. But that's, you know, this is just a point of view of mine that I try to shape as time goes on and I and see how things play out. And then offer for discussion.

Jess Sloss 27:20
I think there's this session over indexing on tools and systems. And what I hear and sort of the core of your answer here is culture. And the the hard work being done early and being consistent to develop a culture that will hopefully sustain Juicebox far beyond, you know, specific governance votes today. I think that's gonna be a big trend. We see as we continue down this governance mini series, I saw a tweet that you sent out today, I wanted to make sure we can get to because I feel like there's some spiciness underneath this. So the tweet is y'all choosing on chain mechanisms simply to quote not get sued? is just not it? Be good, do good and choose the mechanism because it is the right thing? Not because other people say you should or because it's allegedly prevents a sued job, don't create worse problems on your way to solving stuff. would love for you to unpack that a little bit for us?

Jango 28:07
Yeah, I feel like the past few weeks, a lot of people are talking about this Soul Bound NFT token issuance strategy, in my opinion over indexing on it extremely. I think for two reasons. I think Vitalik has written extensively about the idea, and has identified a lot of the pros of the strategy. Although taking that surface level, it can be used to create this like fever, that it can solve all of our legal woes. And so I think that people who have actually taken it and started slapping it on projects are mostly concerned with legal and regulatory issues and are using Soul Bound and non-transferable NFTs, just because their lawyers have suggested they should do so. I think that's just like looking towards the past to solution eyes, something that's like why is to do in the future. And I don't think that these lawyers or folks are understanding I think another aspect of the core Soul Bound thesis is requires that like wallets are also sold down to a human. And that's not the case. And we all know that's not the case. And so a token Soul Bounded to a wallet is kind of a silly like nomenclature. But if you consider other posts of Vitalik talk about different aspects of creating identities as a abstract layer behind wallets, so that you can switch wallets around and maintain an identity and then these sold on NFTs are bound to the human and not the wallet, then maybe we get to somewhere that's more interesting, but so much of what we've built over the past while like the composability aspects of web three that we appreciate so much that enable engineers to build with freedom so much and people to behave with freedom, so much depend on the transferability of tokens. Sure, there's a bunch of speculative behavior that can come as a dark side or a bad side of fungibility or of transferability. But that can be addressed in so many ways. It's an incentive problem more so than there is transferability a problem and just slapping Soul Bounded or like non transferability on things simply because your lawyer said something, I think you're missing a big picture opportunity as well as you're creating other problems for yourself downstream. I think people are going to evolve their wallets over time to more structured and secure and sturdy solutions. You know, wallets get hacked, you need to move stuff around transferability is a massive feature, I think we have to preserve, I don't think it's an go from one to zero thing. But I think the biggest part of the tweet is I just get frustrated with legal shaping how these mechanisms work. When I think a lot of lawyers, a lot of the ones I've spoken with aren't really thinking about the grittiness of a lot of these mechanisms in the fall trade off space. And I've yet to hear someone who's compelled by Soul Bounded fully articulate the trade off space, it seems to be a silver bullet solution to a lot of things, but everything has a trade off. And so if you're gonna propose something, please eliminate the downsides or the risks. Because if there aren't any, I'm going to call bullshit off the bat, everything has trade offs. And then we have to be able to talk about that openly from the gekco, instead of just following the current trend or the current thing, and finding ourselves in another place six months down the road. Hopefully, having learned something that looking back we should have known ahead of time.

Jess Sloss 31:11
Like that's well said, I've been rather shocked with like the explosion of interest around sold down tokens, just given that one. I think a lot of people think it's the way to solve for identity. And it just very clearly is not Jango, I appreciate you helping us kick off, I'm assuming this is the kickoff, actually, I don't know what order these things are gonna come out in. But you are the first interview I've done on this governance mini series. And I think the big takeaway I have from this conversation is just how the novel types of organizations, I think that are going to be created because of some of the simple rules that Juicebox makes really easy to follow. And really excited to see what those organizations look like as they start to really take advantage of the tool as it's built. So thank you for joining and sharing, albeit briefly, the experience there and your vision and some of the ways that you guys make decisions. What's the best place for people to find you or to learn more about Juicebox?

Jango 31:59
Yeah, this conversation has been great. So great, thanks, Jess. Yeah, a lot of setting up juicebox project is still a hands on effort for any product that's thinking about running on Juicebox I think it's important to really think about and learn from what the project is trying to accomplish, and then maybe work through a few potential configurations to accomplish those goals. And so you can reach me at @me_jango on Twitter, also the juicebox DAO Discord is a great place to share your ideas. There's a lot of folks around who are eager to contribute to that conversation and get on calls with you, and help shape the idea and learn about what you're working on and figure out how we can help. Yeah, I love doing onboarding calls. So I try to do those on Fridays. So if anyone has projects that they want to workshop, let's do one of those and see what happens.

Jess Sloss 32:44
I highly recommend that anybody who is exploring or potentially thinking about Juicebox should definitely jump on that I found the community to be. Well, I think brilliant is a good word to describe the folks that you've been able to bring around to work on this. And I've been super impressed with the progress you've made and the clarity with which you speak to both the benefits of the project and the vision that you're building here. So very excited to see what the next months and years look like for you guys. And again, appreciate you jumping on the call with us today. Thanks Jango.

Jango 33:10
Oh, shucks. Thanks, Jess.