The Next Phase of Humanity with Metadreamer | Layer Zero

Welcome to Layer Zero. Layer Zero is a podcast of unscripted conversations with the people that make up the Ethereum community. Crypto is built by code, but it's composed by people, and each individual member of the crypto community has their own story to tell. Cypherpunks understood that the code they write impacts the people that use it, and Layer Zero focuses on the people behind the code, because Ethereum is people all the way down, and it always has been. Today on Layer Zero, I'm talking with MetaDreamer out of the MetaFactory DAO. But MetaDreamer, he's a DAOer, so he's a part of many different parts of the Ethereum ecosystem. And every time I talk to MetaDreamer, either through Zoom or on Discord or in real life, the conversations just get really, really cerebral, really, really cosmic. And he's one of the guys out there that I think really embodies the core values of what makes this crypto space tick. The leaning into collaboration over competition and like this yes and mentality and this how do we create an abundance mentality rather than a scarcity mentality? And really focuses on what I really try and get out of these layer zero podcasts is ultimately the code that we write will ultimately come to impact society for the better if we design these systems correctly. And so he's very tapped into the whole point about crypto is to change culture. The whole point about this whole revolution in digital money and digital finance is to have a better society. And I think a lot of people, when they come into the crypto space, they feel that, but there in my mind is not enough conversations explicitly talking in that direction. And so that is what Bankless Nation, you are about to listen to.

Hey Meta Dreamer, how's it going?

Pretty good man. Are you David?

Pretty good. Pretty good. I think for the rest of this podcast, I'll just call you Meta. How about that?

Yeah, that works.

Or maybe Dreamer.

Dreamer probably. I don't want to be referred to as Meta.

Yeah, yeah, right. Okay. I as soon as I said that, I was like, oh, wait a second. It's probably gonna be the other one.

Yep.

So, Dreamer, who are you? Tell me about yourself.

Yeah, um uh I go by Meta Dreamer. I'm a software engineer and designer. I've been working in the DAO space for just over two years now. Founder of MetaFactory and work on a bunch of projects like Metagame and SourceCred and Coordinate and part of Metacartel Ventures. And yeah, just someone helping to

figure out where we're all going.

Where are we going? Wow, if we could only answer that question. Dreamer, I think one of the reasons why I wanted to pull you on layer zero is because every time you and I have had conversations either through Zoom or in real life in person, they always seem very cosmic.

And these are my types of conversations. Yeah. And so that's where I hope this conversation goes. I hope it ends up being very, very cosmic. I'm gonna have to figure out how to get there. And I think the first question that I want to ask to figure out how to get there is what do you really care about, both inside of crypto and outside of crypto? What really just stands out as important to you? What do you fixate on?

Yeah, so it's kind of like from my name itself, I guess, is like, you know, not trying to fixate on like the surface level things, but really trying to understand the underlying causes or sort of, you know, what's this like, what's the root cause of this, you know, so that meta level, you know, whether it's like, you know, within crypto and like figuring out like what type of things to build, or even just like philosophically or on a like sociopolitical level, like kind of breaking down what's really going on and going deeper than just like, you know, narratives that people hear or things that we, you know, like I think a lot of people, it's just like more so about taking the things they hear from other people and sort of like recycling it or regurgitating it. Um, but for me, it's like trying to like break sort of what's like the underground mycelial network, you know, not necessarily the forest. You know, it's like the whole thing of like you missed a forest for a tree. It's like people missed the mycelial network underground for the forest. So yeah.

There's always one more stage of meta that we can get.

Yeah.

And you're always trying to chase the meta.

Yeah. And I guess like the purpose of it is sort of, you know, I do think that if you solve things at like the primitive level, then you can like solve those problems downstream. And, you know, that's how you also solve the most problems possible, is like, you know, find the lowest common shelling point of something. And like if you make like a 1% improvement there, it could end up being like thousands of percent improvements in many areas just because you know it's downstream of a lot of these other things. So I think that's like sort of important to me is like it's an engineering mindset, you know, which you know, I went into school for computer engineering, but it's like you're always min maxing, right? Like what's the lowest budget we need for this project? So it gets built to spec, et cetera, et cetera. But you know, really in a more

Like philosophical way of what's like you know the lowest hanging fruit, lowest hanging shelling points that we can address to make the most impact. Cause I don't think there's any end destination or some sort of happy state that we're working towards. It's like all about the journey.

So yeah.

I definitely resonate with that. I think a lot of people in the crypto industry resonate with that journey of like trying to find the

Most bang for your buck when it comes to changing the world. Um, post-college, I was always focused on like how do I help people feel better the most? So that led to a degree in psychology, but then I realized like, oh well, nutrition also is really important to helping people feel good. Yeah. So I layered on nutrition, and all of a sudden I was in like super fascinated with the way that the food that you eat impacts your psyche. But then I realized you have to layer on physical movement on top of that. It was like, all right, so then now I'm interested in a career path that was one part psychology, one part nutrition, one part physical movement. And I was trying to figure out like how do I make a holistic career out of all these things? And I saw just a bunch of bureaucracy. But then I found crypto and I was like, as learning about money and finance, I was like, oh well, I mean, if I'm really focused on trying to make the most amount of people feel the best, I would probably try and rework the money in the finance system. As soon as I kind of realized that about crypto, that crypto is going to, exactly what you said, be like the lowest common shelling point. It's like, oh, well, I was immediately just captivated by crypto because you can just have so much influence on the rest of everything about the way humanity works. Would you say that that was kind of a similar path that you found when you're going into crypto?

Yeah, I would definitely say so. It's interesting too, because my wife's a dietitian. So

We get that crypto die combo. Um, but yeah, I think like the, you know, even if you're like the bureaucracy thing is like, you know, that's everywhere, it's omnipresent, right? Like the whole, you know, people get convinced into thinking like we're in like a war of like left versus right or blue versus red, or like, you know, this team versus that team, but the real sort of the split is like the elites versus the masses. And that's apparent in every industry across every domain. And, you know, I think going back to the thing of like, you know, solving things at the root level, money at the end of the day, for better or for worse, powers like everything in the world, right? So if you can make improvements on how money is distributed and you know, the access people have to it, and you know, the not even going beyond money, but even the concept of value itself and how we like engage with that as a society, you make improvements there, then it applies, you know, across the board. And I think, you know, for any like smart person who like wants to make a change in the world, I really think crypto is the place to do it. And whether it's like, you know, I think it also crypto space needs to also like evolve a bit too, where we need to get past like some of the technical stuff to actually like application. Like it's no longer about who has like the best L2s, but who can use L2s to like make the best most real world impact, right? I think you said it once before of like if your DAO isn't moving atoms in the real world, it's not doing anything. So I think we're in that phase now where you know the tech is pretty much like a solved problem. It's a matter of time, I think, until like certain things get implemented. But it's really time to like start walking that walk. And I think you can apply crypto principles to pretty much like every industry. You know, with matter of fact, you were doing it to fashion, but it goes beyond that too. So I think you know, people getting involved in crypto now is just like getting involved with internet stuff back in the 90s. You know, whatever you're doing, the internet's gonna like boost your ability to do it.

Would you say the value is a lower common what was the phrase that you used? Lower

Lowest common shelling point?

Common shelling point. Would you say value is a lower common shelling point than money? As in like value is below money.

Yeah, I would say so. Money itself, if you think about how money was created, it was created as a means to convert one form of value to another. Right. Like if I had a tomato and I wanted to get a haircut, I would have to either like barter that, which is harder to do. But if I can sell the tomato and then use that money to buy a haircut, then I can sort of achieve what I want. So money is a means, not the end itself, right? But

The problem happened is like money became the only thing that's like objectively quantifiable and measurable. And it's the whole saying of like you optimize what you measure. So when money became quantifiable and measurable, it became the measuring stick in how we like organized everything. The whole game turned to like let's maximize GDP, you know? And we all sort of convinced ourselves that that's really what we're trying to go for, or that's the measure of like success or value is like money itself. But value is actually everything outside of money. Money is just a way to convert from one form of value to another. So if you can create things that are not money but serve the purpose of like converting one form of value to another, then you get to move into this like post money society where people can actually communicate and coordinate around value itself in its more pure form instead of only having to go through money.

Because money becomes a bottleneck in a way where you look at, you know, the Great Depression, like all the factories were there, all the people were there to still work on those factories. The whole thing came crashing down because of the money broke. I think money's still gonna serve the system, it's still gonna exist, it's not gonna go away, but it becomes a means to an end. And instead of optimizing for money, we actually make value itself more objectively quantifiable. And we can use cryptography for that as well. So, you know, we've used it for money because money is what we've known all our lives. But in the same way you can record like a number in a contract that represents some token balance, you can also record like verifiable statements or attestations or all these things, which

You know, I can then quantify my values or what I think is valuable. And then if you have a bunch of people quantifying what they think is valuable, you can run algorithms on that and then figure out as a group what do these people think are valuable by summing it all together. And then what that gives you is like a real-time map of like what's valuable or not, you know, in a bottom-up way. And we're not sort of agreeing or trying to come to consensus on like what's valuable because that's impossible. It's all subjective. But we can get some sort of common ground by summing together our individual perspectives to get like the inter-subjective sum. And then that is a map of what's valuable. And once we have a map of what's valuable, we just like sprinkle money on it. Because then you just like money is the sort of water, and that water gets distributed to what people have attested to being valuable. And then that acts as like, again, a part of the system. But instead of like optimizing for the water itself, we're optimizing for the fruit that we're growing with the water.

Okay. I didn't expect this to get so cosmic already 10 minutes into it. This is beautiful. Let me try and like reiterate what you said just to make sure I'm following along. So we have all of these like pockets of value on around the world, right? You got the shoemaker, the tomato grower, the pencil maker. But all of these are valuable, you know, pencils and tomatoes and shoes are valuable for their own particular reasons. But we use money as like this inter-subjective layer to instantiate the value that we have everywhere in the world. And that's like a communication between all of these very non fungible forms of value. You know, while many, many, many tomatoes can all be alike to each other, they're still very different from many, many apples and pencils and houses and cars. And so money is currency, is like this fungible.

Value tool to connect all of these other distinct pockets of value separately and allow us to communicate value. But then you said, like, oh, then it kind of leads us to optimize for the wrong things, right? Like we optimize for GDP. And Andrew Yang talks about this a lot, where like if we keep on optimizing for GDP, we're just gonna drive ourselves off of a cliff. Like we're gonna optimize for GDP out of a cliff. And it was what you said when like all the factories broke down. Like if the money breaks,

well, there's still tomatoes to grow and there's still pencils to make and there's still like shoes to wear and fashion and stuff, but we've lost our ability to communicate.

The value between all of these things. And so I think that gets really, really interesting when we put all of these expressions of value on chain where like DAOs have their own native tokens, which are imbued with some sort of sets of value. And they can be right next to another DAO with another token with another set of values. Sure, we have like the stable coins and the ether, but we also have the native DAO tokens. And since it's all on the same substrate, we're all able to communicate value a little bit more efficiently, a little bit more directly, without perhaps having to go through an inter money layer. And where does it go from here? First off, is that a good summary or would you change anything to that? And like what kind of where does it go from here? Because there's always the idea that, like, oh, we'll go back to a barter society because we'll have 10 bajillion tokens. But I think a lot of economists would say, like, well, no, because you still need the money.

Yeah.

Yeah, for sure. No, I think that's a great summary. Um, I think the where it's going from here is like more than anything, it's like a real mentality shift. You know, I think it's more about unlearning these things than it is about learning new things. And the mentality shift is like, you know, the way we like

Value something. So right now there's this disconnect between value that's created in society and where money goes, right? So a teacher, for example, arguably generates an incredible amount of value for society because they literally educate the people that then go on to like do all these things, right? So they're upstream of a lot of value that's created. Um, but they don't really get any sort of upside on that value or they don't sort of realize the you know, teachers are underpaid overall in society because you know the value they create is disjointed from the value they receive. The value they're receiving is in the school board here. It's like not along the same like pipelines as the value they created. And then if you look at an investment banker, for example, like you know, arguably they generate much less value for society, they're mostly just like, you know, acting as like analogs between like other people's value creation. But because they sit at the intersection where money flows, like they essentially get much more of that upside, not because they're generating more value, but because they're closer to proximity to where like financial transactions are happening. So in society right now, the closer you are to where financial transactions are happening, that's what indicates like you know how like successful you'll be.

Mm-hmm.

If we change that where money can, you know, actually track value more directly, then like it changes the game where instead of like the narcissists or like the psychopaths who can like, you know, become these like CEOs and like do these crazy things, like instead of them making the most money, the people that make the most money in society would be the ones that are generating the most value as attested to by the sum of everyone's like individual opinion on what's valuable. So if you think about like democracy, it's a very like lossy form of governance because we're essentially trying to take all these like nuanced opinions of like 300 million people in the states at least, and then like condense it down to like a binary decision of like this party or that party. So like, and it's really never about like left or right or any of that. And Andrew Yang says this too, is like certain problems need left thinking and certain problems need right thinking in different amounts and different places at different times. So to like condense that all, it's just like all that does is actually make sure these problems never get solved so that the elite can stay elite and then the people can just sort of continue to play that game and think that they're solving something or sort of making an impact. So if everyone's making attestations on what they find is valuable at all times, then like we get a real-time intersubjective, emergent democracy where it's like you don't have to like elect a representative to represent your views on a certain area, like it decentralizes it where you can just express your views yourself and everyone's views are on some common substrate, which can then be like composed and interpreted and be used to like drive decisions or make you know governance. And what that gives you is like that nuance where you can like hike down to like the individual, like hyper-target exactly the needs and you know values of like each individual member of society. So instead of trying to like fix problems from like the top down, where it's like, you know, you can try to like implement this one law and then like it fixes five things but breaks six other things, and then you do that again and like fixes some things and breaks, and we've been doing that for a very long time. And I'm not really optimistic that it's gonna actually progress us fast enough to where we need to be to actually like get out of the sort of you know timeline we're in. But I think going the other way around is like a potential. We could address it in that way, but again, it takes like it's the same thing like with the internet, right? When the internet first came out, people were just like, How do we put radio on the internet? How do we like put books on the internet? How do we take what we know and just like apply this new thing to it instead of like you know, the internet native companies like you know, Snapchat or Instagram or Facebook, like they took that medium and you know, utilized its strengths and unique advantages in a way that wasn't ever possible before, in a way that like you couldn't even like really think of before if you just held on to like existing notions of what you had. So, in the same way, I think the new system will look like very different and sort of that's gonna be the future of like social media as well. Instead of like just communicating information online and trying to like influence others to do things, we don't have to influence anyone. We can just be constantly making attestations on what we find is valuable around us, right? So, like social media, I think it starts to become more decentralized as well, where it's like really more about you and your relationships and the people you work with and these sort of like networks rather than you know, oh, here's a big influencer with a million of followers. It's like that's very like, you know, one to many, but I think it's going to become more many to many. And instead of just information, also communicating in value through these like direct attestations.

What does an attestation look like? Or is it more of an idea? Because I think

the most b like basic reductive version of an attestation is like

I'm a student at school and my teacher taught me something really useful that day, so I pull out my phone and I give her five stars.

Yeah.

Like is that is that the attestation we're looking for?

I think like, yeah, there's attestations that are made all the time. They're just not recorded or captured or, you know, made verifiable and sort of, you know, the whole crypto methodology. So if uh, you know, like however, like if you get paid from your DAO, that's an attestation. If you like vote on a proposal, that's an attestation. We could actually create systems for like direct attestations to imagine like personal tokens, and you can like whoever you give your personal token to, that's essentially an attestation of some sort. So I think attestations will take many forms. And it's not really about creating this new system that we have to now learn how to use and adopt, but more so like mapping our existing behavior and like building the technology around that. And that's like another thing like I really prioritize is you know creating technology and organizations and everything around the people instead of like molding the people around the technology or organization. So, you know, in traditional startup or company, it's like all the employees are sort of forming around the corporation. And it's like, you know, they're sort of changing their identities or the way they're working or the things that they're doing to like conform to what this organization needs. I think that will change in the future where at the center will actually be individuals and then like communities and groups of people, and then organizations and products and tools will essentially be built around them to like conform to what they're doing and what their needs are. And so in that sense, it's like kind of flipping the table a bit, like finding out that like Earth is not the center of the universe and you know, something like that.

So we would the idea would be in like instead of having the corporations that control us in our nine to five jobs being the center of the universe, it flips it on its head and the corporations actually respond to the humans and answer to the humans rather than the humans answer to the corporations. And it's all through the primitive of attestations. Like attestations are how this is unlocked.

Yeah, and you know, if you make a tweet, that's also an attestation. If you say something like, oh, you know, we should do this or this project is dope, you know, those are all attestations. It's just that they're not quantified or verifiable or, you know, but if that exists in a web3 medium where you can actually, when you say that, oh, you support this, that this is actually like a cryptographic record of something, you know, like there's an NFT that represents that, whether it's an organization or an event or whatever it is, you can like point to that thing. And then you can, once you've like mapped that out, then that same it essentially builds up this irrigation system for the infinite garden, right? Right now, if we're talking about the infinite garden of like everything humans are doing, the way the irrigation system works is like there's a big bucket of water or like certain buckets of water, and then people are certain sort of you delegate allocation of money to someone else, right? So like I'll take a bucket of water, and then my job is to go try to find out where the soil is dry and then pour some water there. But like on the way, I'll probably drink half the bucket because I got thirsty. And then, you know, all these other things of like someone creates like a cabal to like, you know, take all the water from everyone else, and like all these things happen. Instead, what this is is like we have like sensors that can read the moisture levels of all the soil everywhere, and this like automated complex irrigation system that can like sense exactly where water is needed and what amount at what time and instantly like get the water there. So I think in the world, that's how money will serve us, is like based on what the humans want and what the humans sort of um like instead of like getting rid of our humanity and sort of like suppressing who we are to like be the sort of like robot for the corporation. And I think that's a symptom of the industrial age, I think. But yeah, instead of doing that, it'll become like we express who we are, what our needs are, and then the irrigation system is like something we collectively like govern and influence, and we can control how it's set up in our certain communities, but it moves the resources from where they are to where they're needed. And if you think about it in the world, like there's no shortage of money, right? The issue is it's just like stuck in these pockets. Um, so like imagine this like scenario where you had a society where everyone got paid like $200 an hour, but you couldn't keep more than five grand in your bank account or in your wallet. And then what that incentivizes is if you want to actually make the most of it, you actually had to spend it. So incentivize people to like.

Actually, get capital moving through the system as much as possible. In that system, you actually don't need a lot of GDP. Like the amount of money you need in that system is not a lot, but you can get way more economic throughput. So money that's sitting idle is essentially like a drain on society. It's all this value that was like captured and sort of created and sort of stored in this form that's now sitting there doing nothing. That if there was a way to communicate exactly where it could be effectively used, even the people who are rich and powerful, like the money itself doesn't make them happy. It's still in human nature that you derive happiness from like, you know, making others happy or you know, seeing some sort of purpose or influence that, you know, what you're doing. And people like rich people or like powerful people, they might want to influence that through like direct command and control. But if you can know that, you know, if Elon Musk could know that like he could flow like a million dollars through this like irrigation system and it'll actually get like really effectively allocated to all these places where it's needed based on attestations of people, then I think people will be much more willing to do philanthropy because it goes even beyond philanthropy. It actually becomes like a way to invest in these things that you believe in and uh you know ensure that your money like it's like lossless value transfer. Right now, it's way too lossy because you'd be like, oh, I'll give it to this charity, and then they'll give it to this nonprofit, and then you know, everyone's gonna take a cut along the way. And at the end, it's like cents to the dollar to like towards the actual cause you want it to do. And that's what happens when you have all the money, you know, all the water being carried by people in buckets instead of being distributed with an advanced irrigation system.

So with this current financial ecosystem that we have and also nation state paradigm, I think a lot of your argument is that the lossiness creates a strong incentive for having a scarcity mindset. Because like if this paradigm of financial loss, if you do anything, you have lossy outcomes with your finances in like kind of how you were saying got a bucket of water, walking through the desert, you're gonna go from A to B, but you're gonna lose water along the way for reasons. If we can build out this paradigm where we have much less loss, you also create a paradigm of people that have a lot less of a scarcity mentality.

Mm-hmm.

Because like they're less fearful of paying taxes to the government. They're less fearful of donating to charity. Exactly. Because they have stronger assurances that the outcome of the resources that they are giving up, they have assurances that it's actually going to actually there will be something produced as a result of that, and they'll be able to see that manifest rather than kind of just like pray and cross their fingers.

Yeah, I think like the idea, like Vitalik made this blog post about like retroactive public funding and stuff like that. And I think that's really sort of on point. And you look at, you know, open source software and all these things, like there's that key problem of like, you know, that generates all this value, but there's no way to like distribute value back to them. I think, you know, in that same way of like guaranteeing it's going towards something that was, you know, not only that will create value, but that was proven to have created value. Like the value was already created, it's just now being retroactively recognized. Right. And then that changes the game too, because then people instead of like thinking primarily how much am I getting paid, and thinking how much effort to put into that based on how much they're getting paid, like, you know, I'm getting paid 100 grand. So I'm gonna put in the amount of effort that would like meet my boss's expectations for this like pay grade, and then like not anything more than that. But it changes that where like the first thing you'll think of is like, how can I create the most value for the most amount of people? Like what you were saying after university, you know, you wanted to like make the most amount of people happier than average. And then once you do that, then the money you get out of that would actually map directly to that value you created. Whereas now it's like someone could do something that's ultra impactful, like you know, the core devs of Ethereum, for example. Like I know they're doing it, they could get paid way more anywhere else, but they're doing it because of that fulfillment they get. And that's another sign of like it's not about the money, it's about you know, they're getting value in all these other ways. But we should map that to actual value they get monetarily as well, too. And we can do that if we, you know, have the way to like recognize that value and then you know ensure that it gets distributed to the right people. And I'm working on a project actually directly for this that was like inspired by the whole guest team not getting enough funding, where like instead of having to like give money to like their bosses and then like delegate it to them on how to allocate it to the people, you could run something like Source Cred on the Geth GitHub repo and then have a map of like who like did the most work and committed the most code and you know, whatever effort they did, even if it's not perfect, it's some representation. Then you can create a contract that's like, you know, and anyone could deploy it, like it's permissionless that would then directly send the funds like to those people's wallets, you know, those devs that directly contributed. And then if you actually make that system like strong enough where like you have these like cryptographic guarantees, that could eventually become a thing at a protocol level where like protocol fees could actually become the master sort of like source of water that then you know gets redistributed out based on direct value created, and maybe not like on the crypto level itself, but there could be protocols above you know the base layer chain to do something like that.

Well, this is certainly what optimism is trying to do with the revenue from maximum extractable value out of their sequencer, right? So the idea for optimism's optimistic roll-up is that there's a lot of value to be extracted from fees, from protocol fees, not at the base Ethereum layer one, but the optimism layer two. And that value that comes from sequencing, the MEV, gets fed into retroactive public goods funding.

Yeah.

So this like illustration that you are describing is actually being experimented and iterated in real time with the optimism team.

For sure. And I see, like, you know, when I talk about this being the future, like I get a conviction and say this because I see everyone else moving towards this as well. You know, like you can start to see the patterns and the structures. And, you know, for me, it's like, I'm not really trying to like say I know what's going on. I'm just pattern matching on like what's actually happening. And yeah, I think what they're doing is like really awesome and it illustrates a great point where there's certain things that will like generate a lot of money, but they might not be something that you want to like, you know, fund itself, right? Like these protocol fees, like that's why people are like, oh, like, you know, projects shouldn't take fees because like what are they needed for? It's just a protocol, it's permissionless, anyone can use it. Like, you know, why are the fees going there? But and then on the on the flip side, there's all these things that generate incredible value, but don't have a way to be monetized. Or if they were monetized, it would like sort of ruin the point of it. You know, so teams that like build this amazing tech that's not really like productizable and they're forced to almost productize it or you know, add some way of value capture there that like doesn't fit to try to like you know get that value. But I think when we can create that connectivity between these pools where a lot of value can accumulate, but you know, it isn't necessarily allocated yet. And then places where it's like really needed, but we don't want to like monetize that thing, instead of having to like you know, value these things directly, we can disassociate like where the value comes from and the thing that creates the value. So, you know, protocol fees like that, DeFi treasuries, like you know, yearn, for example, the fees it generates, like, and they do this themselves right now of like, you know, they really like give back to the community and sort of do a lot of grants and funding, and but it's still sort of people, you know, like manually pouring buckets in places. I think eventually we can evolve that to be even more like decentralized, and you know, people can still have that influence, right? They would just have like a lot of voting weight, for example, to influence that like irrigation system of like where it goes, right? So they can say, I think it should be here, and then the pipes will like shift here a bit, and then the other guy says, I think it should be there, and then it'll like shift there a bit. And then once you average it all together, you get like the outcome.

One of the problems that I'm seeing with this is when you talked about like attestations,

and then you kind of list some activities like a DAO paying someone as an attestation or like a tweet can be an attestation.