Fractally feedback

I will not be making videos in the future for Fractally feedback, as I value my time toward cXc.world more in the spirit of both our vision, and honoring Dan's vision of creating a fractal government system.

Of course, I still ran into issues and still want to talk about them, so I will do so in this textual format.

Thank you to the Fractally team for all of your hard work. I look forward to learning exactly what you are doing.

All fractal images in this post are OC as godsol

Once again, the Fractally team’s disregard for both fractal geometry and following their own rules is the source of the issues. It came to my attention today that all of the Fractally members I had interacted with told me that they were primarily working on a decentralized video conference solution. The stated goal of Fractally is to develop fractal governance in accordance to the Fractally white paper, yet in the Fractally white paper there is no mention of a decentralized video conferencing solution.

By the rules laid out in Fractally white paper, none of the Fractally teams contributions towards decentralized video conferencing should be valued, as it is not developing fractal governance in accordance with the white paper. I understand the more contextual view that this is a part of the mechanism as described in the white paper, but I brought up a point to counter this...

What is the difference between a scam and a legitimate project?

The only difference is that a scam project says that they are doing something, when in reality they are doing something else. A legitimate project lays out what they are doing, and does it to the best of their abilities. If there are changes, they make these known in public.

The reason that I choose not to value work by the Fractally team on a decentralized video solution is that it represents a failure to do what they said they were doing, a failure to honor what Fractally members are communicating is important, and it's generally a bad idea to focus on reworking one part of a system that is already working, when none of the other parts of the system are working.

Another critical issue which I believe has been experienced by every single Fractally member at this point, is the general feeling by the Fractally team that their contributions should be trusted and awarded within a system in a way that is different than the contributions of regular Fractally members.

In my groups, I make it clear that each person should put together some sort of physical referenceable evidence of their contributions. Less than half of the Fractally members in my groups so far did this. Their general argument against doing so is that the code isn't ready, or that they do not have enough time to write up a contribution for the week. Both of these are issues which are part of the complexity of the problem which we are trying to solve.

Understanding this complexity through the lens of human nature, group dynamics, and reward seeking will give us a better view of the simplicity of the solutions.

For example, the Fractally team’s problem of not being able to have the time to create a post with their contributions can be easily solved with a markdown template which they can quickly either type up a description of what they have done, or share some screenshots or other hard evidence that they have done something. On Peaked, this template can be saved for an easy, on-chain proof of contribution. In addition, it takes just a few moments to set up a Hive community which we could all post our contributions to, giving us on-chain proof of contribution that is a meaningful iteration to be improved.

In addition to not providing any evidence towards what they were working on, the fractally member in my group suggested that trust should be a actual metric that people use to determine how to write people. The general argument the team member made is that “I am a part of the Fractally team, you should trust me.”

I explained that because Fractally members did not incur any specific additional power within the system, outside of being on a built-in team, he was suggesting that all members’ contributions should be taken at a trust valuation, meaning we should just trust what people say they did. For me, this is bad. It's bad because many of the Fractally contributors speak about future work, when we are supposed to be speaking of delivered work. Differentiating between what has been done, and what has yet to be done is quite easy when there's hard evidence involved.

The idea of what is future and what is delivered is an entirely different rabbit hole. If we are only supposed to honor contributions which have been delivered, why should we value a trusted Fractally member who, even if we believe they are working on something in the white paper, has not delivered either a product nor evidence that they have created meaningful contributions to developing that product within the past week?

I believe in iterative processes, especially in the context of fractals. Iterative process play out at a game-component-complete level, in which system is ran, then learned from and rebuilt into the next iteration. What we have is a bright group of Fractally members who independently are working on base iterations of common functions necessary to fractal governance. Instead of a Fractally team that is listening to these iterations, and empowering them with a simple nod of the head, and saying “let's try this for now,” we have a Fractally team that is building in secret. We are promised open source code (Dan said June) just like we were promised in the white paper. This open source code would allow members to have an opportunity to create tech-heavy iterations in a meaningful way through forks, and extract value from members like me who can code (and in my case, who has a few years experience developing Fractal systems, and have built a double-fractal curation system )

My value is lying on the table, scattered around on my Hive, my YouTube, and my weekly contributions. This value has not been collected by the Fractally team and integrated into the system. But it's not just my value, I see every person in Fractally value slipping through the cracks. I've made videos about this, so I'm not going to go on about it, but I do wish to say, all of the answers are in geometry. If you study the third dimensional and fourth dimensional fractal structures, you will understand more deeply the complexity of the problem, and see the simplicity of the solutions.

I'd like to conclude by saying this is not meant to be in attack on Fractally team, but a opportunity to realign and move forward in the ways that have been described in the white paper.

Again, not intending to attack Fractally, and instead encourage critical thinking. Consider looking at Fractally as a scam. We were promised tokens, we have gotten no tokens. I even built a RESPEK token, which has been ignored by the team. The team member in my group spent several minutes trying to convince members that this contribution, the one that was sourced from Member’s feedback (honoring Fractal geometry) and described in the white paper, was not valuable. That right there says a lot. I don’t believe Fractally is a scam, but I certainly don’t believe it’s a fractal, as viewed from my years of experience designing fractal systems.
We were promised a process that all members adhere too, yet I am experiencing Fractally members showing up in groups expecting that they don't have to follow their own process, and sometimes outright disrespecting the process they are supposed to be building through both being malicious actors (not operating in the defined consensus mechanism) and not applying the meaning of the word “fractal” in fractal government past a one- or two-dimensional perspective.

I look forward to things getting better.

I am taking these lessons to heart, and developing cXc Tribe to uphold our clearly stated vision, mission, pillars, and foundation. I hope that by refocusing on the more-developed systems I’ve been working on for years, I will in fact be contributing my highest potential to Fractally by leading by example.

cXc Tribe documents will be published Monday on @currentxchange

So much love from the core,

• Douglas

P.S. here are my critical videos if you'd like to understand better the complexity of the problem:

Hi there 👋 I'm Douglas

🧙‍♂️ Druid ~ 👨‍🏫 Teacher ~ 🎙 Rapper ~ 🎨 Designer

---

I create biomimetic economies to help conscious expressions blossom + fruit, starting on cXc.world

I also teach an open course on Universal Consciousness

my php 🏡 douglas.life

• ⛩️ Member of Eden, Fractally + Loud proponent of Hypha

• 🔭 I’m currently building: cXc.world, Aquarius.Academy and side projects $GOLD + $SILVER, and perma.rocks

• 🌞 I’m looking to collaborate on: cXc.world Smart Contracts (EOSIO) and Web 4

• ✋ Grow with us, join a monthly cXc Moon Meet 🌕 lu.ma/cxc

• 💬 Let's chat about: Web 4, Geotemporal Systems, Biomimetic Economics, Fractal Information, Platonic Solids, Collective Participation Income (CPI), Time Tokens, Channeling.

• ✈️ Drop a line: TW @dougbutner

• 🌎 Fun fact: I have been a Digital Nomad for over 4 years!! Living mostly in Latin America. Currently in Medellin, CO.

---

Let's connect on

Instagram | Telegram @godsolislove | Twitter

Follow My Current Moves

---