Oh gosh, now I have to come up with some objective criteria for who should be part of the seed of this project.

Small update: Website link on this space is now a discord invite!

The Criteria for the Criteria.

It is known that the initial composition of a group or community has an outsized effect on it's direction in the future, out of pure momentum the holes in the ideas of the people that started something will most likely be what ends up ending that thing.

So the goal is to come up with some criteria with the goal of leading to a good ending.

Good endings (nonexclusive)

• We fund a bunch of projects and creators who manage to take their creations a step further and develop their own support networks, make a bunch of friends, and run out of money.
• We get some momentum and support, and support creators and builders in turn, but gradually the core of the community loses enthusiasm and goes their own ways - newer folks take up the mantle and the network develops in their directions into the future.
• We pay for a couple of amazing creations that develop a life of their own - our focus is sucked primarily into these projects and ideas and very little attention is on the little seed that started it. That is fine.
• We spend very little funds funding creators because everyone wants to talk about ideas and stuff. Great ideas spin out but never really needed funds to happen, just enthusiasm and people. We become a primarily social space, occasionally dusting off the old onchain account to throw a party or something.

Bad endings (nonexclusive)

• The amount of support we can offer doesn't attract anyone to ask for anything. The only thing we succeed in is creating an empty discord and a funny idea (lol).
• We give someone malicious the keys to the proxy, they drain all of our shared resources over a holiday when nobody is available and paying attention.
• We get into arguments and fights constantly - the network becomes ineffective in acting because someone is always vetoing something - the only people who stick around are those who can tolerate the politics, not those we are here to help. We end up succeeding in nothing of note.
• We fund a bunch of projects and creators but didn't consider sustainability and/or burned bridges behind ourselves. We are in an objectively worse situation than we started out in. We run out of funds and are resentful of each other.
• The network is thoroughly coopted - for profit, intolerant ideology, some specific ego, or cringe - the culture shifts and people who tolerate the new culture stay, and others leave. The momentum exists but is diverted into something disagreeable.

So, some criteria?

• Balance - We probably want the first people involved to have opinions about and experience in every part of this process we will need to use; that means creators and builders, who will be the recipients of support; that means facilitators and directors and networkers, who will be gathering people and executing things on chain; and it also means supporters and people with good ideas, who will be the lifeblood fueling everyone else.
• Values - We probably want the first people involved not to hate each other, and have some semblance of agreement on the direction things should go. I believe the network itself is structured in a way that will scare away some of the folks who don't share the same values; but where possible, expressing our values is important in attracting people who share the same ideas as us.
• Trust - Perhaps related to sharing values, but we probably want folks to have some degree of legitimacy and "clout" in the spaces they exist in - We don't want people to put up a financial stake to participate, that means we need people with reputations at stake. :)
• Direction - We want to hit the ground running, that means picking on people who already know what they want and what they are going to do. I will admit; this is not me. :)

As always, feedback and comments appreciated! This is a developing document and idea.