In this final episode of Governance Futures Season 1, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Anke Liu, Governance Lead at the Stellar Development Foundation (SDF), about Neural Quorum Governance — a novel mechanism co-developed with BlockScience to make community funding more equitable, modular, and participatory.As the Ecosystem Growth Lead at the Stellar Development Foundation, Anke Liu (X: anke_g_liu) oversees programs and initiatives catalyzing innovation and expansion of the Stellar Ecosystem, including the Stellar Community Fund and the Stellar Ambassador Program. Her collaboration with BlockScience on the creation of Neural Quorum Governance paves the way for a new standard for reputation-based governance. Anke is driven by a passion for decentralized coordination structures and impactful innovation in Web3.   Anke shares how Stellar’s governance evolved from simple community voting into a complex but flexible model balancing reputation, delegation, and trust. The discussion covers privacy vs. transparency, the cultural foundations of decentralization, and what it takes to sustain engagement across bear markets. Anke also reflects on the future of DAO incentives, identity, and the importance of effort and culture in keeping governance systems alive.   The episode closes with Anke’s one-word vision for governance: Plural. Some of the materials we mention in the episode: 1. Stellar: https://stellar.org/2. Stellar Community Fund (SCF): https://communityfund.stellar.org/ 3. Stellar Community Fund Handbook: https://stellar.gitbook.io/scf-handbook/governance/neural-quorum-governance 4. Introducing Neural Quorum Governance: https://blog.block.science/introducing-neural-quorum-governance/ 5. The Story Behind Neural Quorum Governance: https://blog.block.science/the-story-behind-neural-quorum-governance/ 6. The Road Ahead — SCF’s Implementation of Neural Quorum Governance: https://medium.com/stellar-community/the-road-ahead-scfs-implementation-of-neural-quorum-governance-4f44d22fa370 7. NQG Voting Report- https://hackmd.io/@blockscience/ryujino3p 8. Metagov Seminar - On Neural Quorum Governance (Liu): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVfZq8zJKg Timestamps: 00:00 – Cold Start 00:49 – Introduction: Hosts Jamilya and Eugene open the season finale 02:49 – Reflections on Season 1 and setting the stage for Anke’s episode 04:40 – Anke’s story: from COVID community organizing to blockchain governance 06:42 – Spotting red flags and burnout in community building 08:51 – Why genuine communities survive beyond hype cycles 09:47 – Origins of Neural Quorum Governance (NQG) 10:50 – How neural weighting and quorum delegation work 13:11 – Designing NQG with BlockScience and Stellar’s trust-based ethos 15:11 – Comparing governance models across ecosystems 17:06 – Inside the Stellar Community Fund: panels, reviews, and voting cycles 18:48 – The Pathfinder, Navigator, and Pilot system of roles 20:35 – Delegate selection, quarterly nominations, and accountability 22:44 – Delegation cycles, abstaining votes, and participation rules 24:18 – Voting rounds, timing, and flexibility in the SCF process 26:45 – Iteration over two years: evolution and $30M in grants 28:27 – Adding “neurons” and metrics for voting quality 30:20 – Measuring fairness: decentralization and Theil index 32:02 – Improving equity and access for newcomers 34:23 – Reputation, learning, and how new contributors gain voting power 36:15 – Decentralization challenges and trade-offs 38:27 – Privacy vs. transparency: the hardest governance problem 41:17 – Institutional adoption, privacy demands, and zero-knowledge tech 44:35 – Balancing delegate protection and verifiability 47:51 – Enterprise privacy vs. open decision-making 49:43 – Identity, Proof of Humanity, and reputation layers 51:54 – Culture as the heart of governance systems 55:51 – Rethinking decentralization and the end of the foundation era 58:02 – Open infrastructure, transparency, and credible neutrality 59:52 – Dece

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Isaac Patka about the evolving landscape of security in decentralized systems. Isaac Patka is a developer and founder in the Ethereum ecosystem specializing in security and compliance infrastructure. He is the co-founder of Shield3, which conducts incident response training through Wargames exercises for major DeFi and infrastructure protocols, performs operational security audits including multisig configuration and infrastructure reviews, and builds policy and compliance infrastructure specifically for stablecoin projects. Isaac is also a founding member and initiative lead at the Security Alliance (SEAL), an industry group of top researchers, auditors, developers, and lawyers working together to improve the security landscape of web3. Isaac brings a rare mix of technical insight and human awareness to Web3, exploring how culture, design, and attention failures shape the vulnerabilities of DAOs. The conversation dives into topics like proof of inattention, optimistic governance, and the hidden power of dispute resolution. Isaac shares stories from his work in white-hat hacking, DAO roasts, and wargaming—real-world simulations that help protocols identify weak points before hackers do. He also explains why paranoia is healthy in crypto, why multi-sigs often fail from social engineering rather than code, and how simple practices can drastically reduce risk.The episode closes with reflections on AI, security culture, and why the future of governance may look a lot like the past—council-driven, human-centered, and built on trust. Security Alliance (SEAL): https://www.securityalliance.org/SEAL Frameworks: https://www.securityalliance.org/frameworksWargames: https://www.securityalliance.org/wargamesNounsDAO: https://nouns.wtf/Timestamps: 00:00 – Cold start 00:56 – Introduction: Jamilya and Eugene welcome Isaac Patka 03:06 – Why everyone eventually gets phished: real-world hacks and human error 05:23 – The growing attack surface in decentralized ecosystems 07:42 – The birth of DAO Roasts: fact-checking decentralization claims 10:04 – NounsDAO and the challenge of decentralization with veto power12:23 – White-hat hacking: testing governance systems responsibly 14:48 – Defining white-hat vs. gray-hat ethics in crypto 17:07 – How security gray zones blur the line between defense and offense19:24 – The LampDAO experiment: voting to turn a real-world light on and off21:47 – DAO governance meets physical reality and off-chain limits24:07 – “Proof of inattention” as a governance failure mode 26:31 – Delegates, fatigue, and the limits of direct democracy 28:54 – Why most voters copy trusted delegates without understanding proposals31:15 – Guardrails and veto power: trade-offs in optimistic governance33:36 – The real locus of power: dispute resolution and enforcement35:55 – The origins of Security Alliance and the birth of WarGames38:16 – Simulating incidents: chaos drills for DeFi protocols40:42 – Threat modeling: finding vulnerabilities beyond smart contracts43:01 – SEAL-911: the crypto emergency hotline45:17 – Human trust in automated systems: staking and delegation47:39 – Why protocols still underestimate operational risks50:06 – Security culture: humans all the way down52:30 – Paranoia as a governance virtue54:51 – Practical safeguards: how to verify urgent messages and avoid scams56:54 – AI in governance: new attack surfaces and security implications59:19 – Overwarning fatigue and the limits of “Accept risk and sign” popups01:01:35 – Access control and permission boundaries in multisigs01:03:52 – How to stay safe: real-world scams and social engineering examples01:08:34 – Long cons, fake grants, and deepfakes in the crypto world01:12:59 – Vigilance without paranoia: staying human in security01:15:22 – Physical safety, seed phrases, and low-profile best practices01:17:43 – Crypto conferences, travel safety, and not standing out01:19:59 – Security fra

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Dr. Joachim Schwerin. Joachim Schwerin is PhD economist, blockchain expert and privacy activist with 35 years of experience in academia, the public sector and metapolitical networks. He is also Principal Economist in the unit in charge of Responsible Business Conduct within the Directorate-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) of the European Commission, where his current focus lies on developing positive framework conditions for DAOs and Web3. In the financial domain, he contributed to the EU’s Digital Finance Strategy, including the MiCA Regulation, and the preparatory work for the Digital Euro. The conversation moves from the historical roots of centralization to the potential of blockchain for rebuilding community-driven governance. Dr. Schwerin reflects on the balance between individual resilience and systemic change, the dangers of policy inertia, and how the digital domain allows people to preserve culture, identity, and solidarity in uncertain times. The episode closes with his message of hope: the future of governance lies in self-organized communities that act, not just talk.Timestamps: 00:00 – Cold Start 00:57 – Hosts Jamilya and Eugene introduce Dr. Joachim Schwerin 02:19 – Solidarity, privacy, and resilience — the themes of the episode 04:20 – How Dr. Schwerin entered blockchain and governance 06:14 – From self-organizing communities to centralized control 08:35 – Blockchain as a societal revolution and tool for liberation 10:56 – Politics, crypto, and the parallels between Web3 and global governance 12:36 – Prussia, identity, and the digital domain as a safe harbor 16:59 – Micronations, Liberland, and the history of experimental governance 19:12 – The rise of digital states and the competition of ideas 21:31 – Privacy and industrial competitiveness: the hidden connection 23:09 – Privacy as a foundation for self-organization and innovation 25:22 – How states misuse privacy narratives for control 27:39 – Why even corporations and governments rely on privacy tech 29:14 – Everyday privacy: practical ways to protect yourself 31:39 – What it means to be a “privacy activist” in daily life 34:02 – Trust, DAOs, and why real governance starts offline 36:22 – Generational change and the slow death of legacy systems 38:42 – Banks, surveillance, and standing your ground 41:17 – Activism through example: living privacy by doing 43:06 – The inner life of “the system” and finding allies in institutions 45:27 – Serving the nation vs. serving power: lessons from Prussian ethics 47:28 – The collapse of old systems and seeds of renewal 49:40 – Hope amid surveillance: resilience in restrictive environments 51:41 – Finding strength in solidarity and the legacy of values 56:05 – What triggers change: crisis, policy, and collective adaptation 58:28 – How every crisis pushes people toward decentralization 01:02:17 – Designing the next governance model: trade-offs and trust 01:04:37 – One person, one vote? Rethinking cooperative governance 01:06:57 – Generational shifts, innovation, and the inevitability of change 01:09:23 – The fear of death, the persistence of power, and legacy systems 01:12:00 – Overcoming division and starting change with one person 01:12:37 – Rapid-fire quiz: philosophy, integrity, and governance lessons 01:14:01 – Pitfalls of delay and the courage to act 01:15:31 – The future of governance: self-organized communities 01:16:10 – Closing thanks and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Amber Case (Cyborg Anthropologist), technologist, author, and founder of the Calm Technology Institute. Case explores how humans and technology co-evolve — a field she helped pioneer as one of the world’s leading voices in cyborg anthropology. The conversation dives into lessons from Case’s DAO Game, a simulation designed to help communities stress-test governance systems before launching. Drawing from Case's work on Calm Technology, Case explains why governance must account for human limits, how inclusive design mirrors ancient rituals, and why “design is governance.” The episode explores patterns in community behavior — from country clubs to DAOs — revealing that while tools change, human coordination remains timeless. Case closes with reflections on AI, collective learning, and why the future of governance might just look a lot like the past. Some of the materials we mention in the episode: - An Illustrated Dictionary of Cyborg Anthropology (PDF) - https://caseorganic.gumroad.com/l/anthropdf Design is governance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clxm5qW3pao&t=1s Calm Governance - https://www.calmtech.institute/ - Design is governance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clxm5qW3pao&t=1s- Calm Governance - https://www.calmtech.institute/   Timestamps: 00:00 – Cold Start 00:56 – Introduction: Jamilya and Eugene reflect on their conversation with Amber Case 02:23 – First impressions: cyborg anthropology and governance 04:15 – What is cyborg anthropology? Humans, tech, and adaptation 06:14 – The birth of wikis and the evolution of online collaboration 08:38 – Wiki culture, editing systems, and governance through software 11:06 – Invisible governance: how online communities self-organize 13:32 – Digital identity, hyper-sigils, and the self in online life 15:11 – Simulating governance: why Case built the DAO Game 17:34 – How DAO Game helps players experience governance dynamics 19:12 – Why every DAO should test its governance as a game 20:13 – Governance as a marathon: lessons from boardrooms to DAOs 22:41 – What really happens behind the scenes of board governance 25:02 – Rituals, trust, and the hidden rules of community participation 27:24 – Old wisdom in new systems: lessons from Ostrom and co-ops 29:49 – Origins of “DAO” and the automation of home systems 31:58 – Are DAOs just repeating human governance patterns? 33:55 – Design is governance: how architecture shapes participation 36:21 – Inclusive vs. exclusive design and the myth of openness 38:45 – Entropy, ecosystems, and why good governance reduces chaos 41:02 – Boundaries, belonging, and the emotional work of inclusion 42:55 – How to handle community tensions and exclusivity 44:54 – Measuring vibes: Case’s 60-point community scoring system 48:21 – Reducing entropy through shared rituals and space design 50:44 – Training community members and fostering stewardship 53:07 – Recognizing creativity, humility, and contribution 55:34 – Legos, learning, and what makes great collaborators 57:18 – The social awareness matrix: identifying healthy dynamics 59:36 – Group design, collaboration, and cultural literacy 01:02:26 – The politics of cleanliness, care, and invisible labor 01:05:39 – The Phoenix Project: bottlenecks, burnout, and learning loops 01:08:49 – Calm Technology and AI: using minimal tech for maximum care 01:10:56 – Why messy spaces produce creativity and innovation 01:13:14 – Final reflections and the rapid-fire governance quiz 01:14:18 – One-word quiz: Constraint, History, Sobriety, Past 01:15:30 – Closing thoughts and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Seth Frey, computational social scientist and researcher of governance, common pool resources, and online communities. Seth brings insights from years of studying how people self-organize — from Minecraft servers to DAOs — and explores what digital communities can learn from Ostrom’s theories of commons management. The conversation covers the roots of governance in human behavior, why DAOs struggle not from a lack of tools but from a lack of community managers, and why decentralization without culture leads to chaos. Seth shares lessons from online systems like Minecraft and Reddit, reflects on the balance between centralization and decentralization, and discusses how “off-chain” culture and human development are the true frontiers of Web3 governance. The episode closes with his one-word vision for governance: Scaling Local.   Some of the materials we mention in the episode: Online communities as model systems for commons governance- https://enfascination.com/weblog/post/2907 Timestamps 00:00 – Cold start 01:00 – Introduction: Hosts reflect on their conversation with Seth 04:25 – Overview of Seth’s work on governance and common pool resources 05:57 – Parallels between traditional and digital commons 08:11 – Applying Ostrom’s framework to digital resources 10:11 – The Ostroms’ contribution: self-organization beyond market and state 12:34 – Eleanor Ostrom’s legacy and early research journey 14:35 – Defining common resources in Web3: attention and computational limits 15:42 – Lag, attention, and other finite digital resources 18:02 – What Minecraft communities teach us about self-governance 20:00 – Bureaucracy and creativity in online worlds 22:26 – Rules as history lessons vs. proactive governance 24:11 – From informal play to formal systems: emergent order in communities 26:20 – How users invented governance in Minecraft 28:34 – Human motivation in governance: enthusiasm vs. apathy 30:43 – When democracy is appropriate — earning participation 33:02 – The problem with solving problems you don’t yet have 34:53 – Benevolent dictatorships and transitions to community management 37:02 – Why communities resist picking up the ball of participation 39:21 – Learning from lived experience, not ideology 41:03 – Off-chain culture, vibes, and the role of community managers 43:11 – Building strong community culture as a governance project 45:12 – The science of vibes and sustaining good culture 47:15 – Redefining decentralization and polycentric governance 49:36 – Power, purity, and the myth of total decentralization 51:30 – Bureaucracy as fairness and human-centered governance 53:29 – Training people to govern: developing human capacity 55:30 – Technology vs. people — garbage in, garbage out 56:20 – Leadership’s paradox: top-down democracy building 58:37 – Standardizing culture without killing diversity 01:00:48 – Polycentric systems: designing top-down and bottom-up balance 01:03:02 – AI in governance: developmental, not managerial 01:05:26 – AI as a tool for training future human governors 01:07:24 – One-word quiz: Inspiration, Futility, Off-chain, Scaling Local 01:14:19 – Closing reflections and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Mike Cooper. Mike Cooper is an experienced social scientist with 17 years of leadership in impact strategy and measurement for numerous multilateral, bilateral, and other social impact groups, including the World Bank, various UN agencies, USAID, FCDO, MCC, and others. He specializes in the curation and use of evidence for decision-making in decentralized systems. He is currently working with Metagov on creating standards for impact planning and measurement. Mike brings his background in international development to the challenges of Web3, exploring how impact should be defined, measured, and planned for in decentralized ecosystems. The conversation covers the culture of Web3 grant programs, the pitfalls of vanity metrics, and why problem definition must come before funding solutions. Mike shares insights on how decentralization does (and doesn’t) correlate with impact, the importance of creating an “evidence commons” for governance experiments, and lessons Web3 can learn from commons management and collective action models. The episode closes with Mike’s one-word vision for governance: variety.Timestamps: 00:00 – Introduction and hosts’ reflections on Web3 grants 04:52 – Mike’s background in international development and impact framing 07:13 – Defining impact: problems, strategies, and measurement 10:24 – Grants as marketing vs. solving real problems 12:36 – Web3’s potential as a transformational tool for social impact 14:14 – Lessons from decentralization in international development 16:22 – Culture of Web3 grants and gaps in transparency 18:05 – Comparing Web3 grants with traditional gold standards 20:23 – Emerging standards and the role of Metagov’s Grant Impact Handbook 22:04 – Why decentralization doesn’t guarantee impact 23:41 – Governance paralysis, inefficiencies, and planning gaps 25:36 – Performative decentralization vs. honest centralization 27:32 – Experimentation, evidence, and governance design 29:58 – Outputs vs. outcomes vs. impact 34:08 – Network growth vanity metrics and flawed assumptions 36:23 – Problem definition as the foundation for impact 38:04 – Measuring long-term impact and sustainability of projects40:00 – Developing the Grant Impact Handbook 42:25 – AI, mechanisms, and knowledge translation in grant governance 44:01 – Mechanism libraries and evidence standards 46:24 – Building an evidence commons for Web3 50:12 – Cultural and organizational hurdles to adopting evidence use 52:11 – Incentives for grantees and grant programs 54:29 – Funding pressures and bull/bear market dynamics 56:26 – Leadership, hierarchy, and who drives impact culture 58:44 – Capital allocation’s role in ecosystem success 01:00:12 – Learning from mistakes and failure festivals 01:02:12 – The case for an evidence commons in Web3 01:05:50 – Champions, culture, and incentives for evidence use 01:08:14 – Toward performance standards and shared learnings 01:10:11 – Quiz: commons, principles, decentralization, variety 01:11:12 – Closing thanks and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Jen, DAO Comms Lead at Lido, about the launch of Lido’s dual governance model. Jen shares her journey into governance, her perspective on decentralization, and how Lido is addressing value alignment between token holders and stETH users. The conversation explores how dual governance gives stETH holders veto power, the role of delegate incentives, and the challenges of combining technical complexity with inclusive participation. Jen also reflects on Vitalik’s call to “burn down” legitimacy, why governance should evolve instead, and how clarity matters more than total transparency. The episode closes with a rapid-fire quiz, where Jen sums up the future of governance in one word: adaptability. Some of the materials we mention in the episode:Dual Governance at Lido: https://x.com/TariQuin/status/1941154197870915950Vitalik recently said:https://youtu.be/pPZZ25qSprY?feature=shared&t=1590 Timestamps:00:00 – Cold Start 00:54 – Introduction and reflections on Lido governance 04:46 – Jen’s path into governance and joining Lido DAO 07:08 – Defining decentralization and Lido’s approach 10:11 – Times Square billboard and dual governance announcement 12:47 – Lido’s governance process before dual governance 14:34 – Delegate incentive program and oversight committee 18:18 – Governance as work: paying for delegate contributions 19:30 – Dual governance explained: stETH holders’ right to exit 23:27 – Safeguards, vetoes, and community alignment 25:08 – LDO vs. stETH holders: reactions to dual governance 29:12 – Governance expertise, DAO challenges, and delegate roles 31:53 – Why governance should serve the product, not dominate it 35:59 – Technical complexity and the need for education 40:24 – Committees, mandates, and decentralization trade-offs 43:39 – Balancing operations, transparency, and security 48:34 – The role of AI in governance clarity and summaries 52:12 – Legitimacy, Vitalik’s critique, and evolving governance 58:03 – Tokens, utility, and the uniqueness of DAOs 59:57 – Research priorities: defining the scope of DAO governance 01:05:46 – One-word quiz: decentralization, governance, adaptability

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Puja Ohlhaver about her latest paper on community currencies and the PCARE model. She explains how her work builds on earlier frameworks, critiques one-token-one-vote models, and offers new approaches for balancing money, votes, attention, and influence. Puja Ohlhaver is a lawyer, technologist, and innovator focused on renovating democracy to resist authoritarian drift in the age of AI. As a member of Harvard’s GETTING-Plurality Research Group at the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation, her work bridges law, economics, and computation to build pluralistic governance that empowers communities to rapidly scale cooperation across networks without succumbing to surveillance. Her most recent work explores how community currencies can rebalance attention and influence to amplify collective voices within frontier AI models, while hardening systems against both capture and overreach. Ohlhaver co-authored Decentralized Society: Finding Web3’s Soul with Glen Weyl and Vitalik Buterin. Her commentary has appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, WIRED, and Time Magazine. The conversation dives into the economic and political theory behind PCARE, its potential role in reconciling financial and non-financial commitments, and how subsidiarity and plurality can foster healthier governance systems. Puja also shares perspectives on the role of AI, digital reputation, and why legitimacy must be rooted in local communities while still enabling global cooperation. The episode closes with her vision for the future of governance in one word: plurality. Some of the materials we mention in the episode: - Ohlhaver, Puja and Nikulin, Mikhail and Berman, Paula, Compressed to 0: The Silent Strings of Proof of Personhood (March 6, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4749892 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4749892 - Ohlhaver, P. (2024, October 1). Common Knowledge Machines: From Community Notes to Community Posts. Substack. https://pujaohlhaver.substack.com/p/common-knowledge-machines - Ohlhaver, Puja, Community Currencies: The Price Of Attention And Cost Of Influence In A Networked Age -or-The Price Of Entry And Cost Of Exit In A Networked Age (January 02, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5136037 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5136037 - Ohlhaver, P. [deep dives w/thefett]. (2024, September 30). Community currencies and PCARE with Puja Ohlhaver [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpt8PBWgdRw - Ohlhaver, P. (2024, October 15). Why community currencies are crucial for governance in DeSoc (Ep. 588) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRnYj_4GQHs  Timestamps00:00 – Teaser/Preview 01:11 – Introduction and hosts’ reflections on Puja’s paper04:46 – Puja’s personal, political, and economic motivations for community work09:09 – AI, crypto, and decentralization beyond state power11:31 – Community posts, discourse, and polarization online18:04 – From Soulbound Tokens to community currencies: evolution of ideas25:52 – Incentive alignment, liquefaction, and empty voting critiques30:08 – Attention, influence, and the theory of power in networks34:27 – Pareto’s law and the dangers of one-token-one-vote40:21 – How PCARE introduces trade-offs between money and voting44:37 – Why irrevocable stake matters for influence48:55 – Subsidiarity, plurality, and justice in community currency design53:05 – Community-based income and social recombination57:22 – Enforcement, bribery, coercion, and community governance01:01:10 – AI, neural networks, and identity as a networked self01:06:30 – Reputation, relational context, and bridging communities01:12:14 – Global vs. local currencies and legitimacy in communities01:17:18 – Locality, legitimacy, and reorienting away from anti-social media01:21:09 – Future experiments: civil society, social media, and music communities01:25:12 – Where community currencies could start in

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene sit down with Mateusz Rzeszowski and Raam Chandrasekharan of the Arbitrum Foundation to discuss Arbitrum’s evolving governance model.They trace the DAO’s journey from its “big bang” launch to today’s more structured system, highlighting initiatives like the new Operations Company and Arbitrum-aligned entities designed to improve accountability while keeping token-holders in control. The conversation also explores delegate participation and incentives.With hundreds of thousands registered but only a fraction active, Arbitrum has tested different incentive programs - sometimes leading to unintended behaviors like AI-generated comments.Mateusz and Raam share how recent updates aim to reward meaningful contributions and attract larger stakeholders, while stressing that long-term governance should be driven by alignment, not compensation. Throughout, they reflect on the balance between decentralization and efficiency, the importance of facilitation, and what DAOs can learn from political philosophy and even nature.It’s a candid look at how one of the largest DAOs is navigating growth and maturity. Some of the materials we mention in the episode:Updates to the DIP- https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x008f190725018c3db0e6464bf31d44f09a4d7773fd1486dff0c52c27b8aba289Vision for the future of Arbitrum - https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/a-vision-for-the-future-of-arbitrum/28962The Operation Company (OpCo) proposal - https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/41351298371775353090222506531903916823291804644712693824312064183457809617851?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4 Timestamps 00:00 – Episode introduction & host overview (Arbitrum’s governance context)04:32 – Guest introductions: Mateusz and Raam share their backgrounds09:37 – Governance overhaul: new vision with an Operations Company and aligned entities15:58 – DAO origins & maturity: from Arbitrum’s decentralized launch to structured evolution20:07 – Delegate engagement: registered vs. active participation in the DAO21:43 – Centralization debate: balancing operational efficiency with token-holder power25:10 – Decentralized legitimacy: how the DAO retains control over aligned entities27:31 – Governance facilitators: team roles as peacemakers and execution overseers37:08 – Delegate incentives: program design, gaming the system, and improvements44:57 – Incentive alignment: fostering intrinsic commitment versus financial rewards01:05:48 – Quick-fire quiz: one-word answers on the future of governance01:06:25 – Closing Note

In this episode, we sit down with Vaughn McKenzie-Landell to explore how market-driven decision-making can transform DAO governance. Vaughn is CEO & co-founder of Butter, who are bringing Information Finance to Ethereum — starting with Futarchy. He started his career at Dow Jones but exited TradFi after a google search in 2009 delivered him into the BitcoinTalk forum. Together, we break down Butter’s evolution from simple delegate-payments to more complex schemes like proposal auctions and peer prediction, with each iteration teaching valuable lessons. We dig into their latest futarchy experiments – for example, running market-based grant allocations for Optimism’s ecosystem and for the Uniswap Foundation – where clear objectives (like growing total value locked) were set and participants bet on which projects would best achieve them. Along the way we cover practical challenges: choosing objective metrics (often ROI), incentivizing honest participation, and even regulatory hurdles. Finally, we consider what this all means for the broader DAO space: futarchy seems well-suited to big funding decisions with measurable outcomes, while simpler proposals may still be handled by more traditional votes. The episode wraps up by highlighting how continual experimentation – a bit of a “kaizen” (改善 - a Japanese term meaning continuous improvement (“kai” = change, “zen” = good) mindset – is shaping a more innovative, resilient future for decentralized governance and capital allocation. Timestamps 00:00 Introduction to Governance Futures Podcast 04:13 Exploring Futarchy and Its Applications 11:00 Governance Challenges and Information Problems 12:59 Understanding Futarchy in Simple Terms 18:55 The Evolution of Butter and Initial Experiments 26:52 Misconceptions About Futarchy and Prediction Markets 33:40 Concrete Experiments and Their Outcomes 55:30 Future of Governance and Futarchy Models 01:00:22 Navigating Regulatory Challenges in Crypto 01:09:53 Quiz and Closing Remarks

In this episode, we sit down with Spencer Graham and Nicholas Naraghi, cofounders of Hats Protocol, to explore what it really takes to make DAO governance work. Spencer Graham is a cofounder of Hats Protocol and has been working for five years on making DAOs actually effective. Nicholas Naraghi is a cofounder of Hats Protocol, DAO true believer since 2017, BTC since 2011. Together, they break down the unique strengths of decentralized organizations compared to traditional structures, diving into concepts like hardness, anticapture, trust zones, and modularity. We also discuss the practical challenges DAOs face, from regulatory hurdles to accountability, and how programmable governance frameworks might transform collective decision-making. Finally, we look at the role AI and innovation can play in building more resilient, future-ready decentralized systems. Some of the sources we mention during the episode: - Spencer Graham "Governance is about action, not decision-making" (2022) https://spengrah.mirror.xyz/tGT32p-lA__63rmTXq_OD_iTTDoK-vsUn3QVsnnWmvo - https://docs.hatsprotocol.xyz/ - Spencer Graham "Anticapture" (2022) https://spengrah.mirror.xyz/f6bZ6cPxJpP-4K_NB7JcjbU0XblJcaf7kVLD75dOYRQ - Josh Stark "Atoms, Institutions, Blockchains" (2022) https://stark.mirror.xyz/n2UpRqwdf7yjuiPKVICPpGoUNeDhlWxGqjulrlpyYi0 Timestamps00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome 04:27 Understanding DAOs and Disruptive Innovation07:52 Exploring Decentralized Responsibilities12:37 Defining Decentralization24:44 Governance vs. Operations in DAOs32:43 Accountability in DAOs38:45 The Concept of Hardness in Blockchain43:23 Regulatory Challenges and Innovation in DAOs44:13 The Need for Net New Innovation46:25 Technological and Regulatory Hurdles48:45 The Promise and Challenges of Modularity52:38 Introduction to Trust Zones55:05 Defining Trust Zones and Their Applications01:02:41 Optimizing DAOs with Trust Zones01:07:47 The Future of Governance and Trust Zones01:15:12 Quiz and Closing Remarks

In this episode of Governance Futures, Eugene and Jamilya speak with Anthony Leutenegger, CEO of Aragon, about tooling, regulation and DAO governance today. We dig into why ownership and control matter more than vague notions of decentralization, and how design choices like Aragon OSx are reshaping the way DAOs govern themselves. We also explore lessons from experiments like Lido’s dual governance, the impact of emerging regulation such as the Clarity Act, and what it could mean if decentralized ownership becomes a legal requirement. In this conversation we also discuss the role of modular systems, incentives, and AI agents in shaping the next generation of governance. This episode is for those questioning what real decentralization means, and how governance in Web3 must evolve to balance founder control, community power, and legal clarity. Some of the materials we mention in the episode:- Aragon documentation: https://docs.aragon.org/- The Growth Engine: How veLockers & Gauges Drive Value Accrual: https://blog.aragon.org/the-growth-engine-how-velockers-gauges-drive-value-accrual/- Aragon OSx: https://docs.aragon.org/osx-contracts/1.x/index.html#the_aragon_osx_dao_framework- Anthony's talk at ETH Prague 2025 "Ownership and Governance always needs the right Incentives": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAIA625hLR0Listen to this and more episodes on all platforms: Apple : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gov-futures-trailer/id1823028614?i=1000714675608Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/show/6QRkrWmq21Z66jRJtN2UIuFollow us on X: https://x.com/gov_futuresTime-stamps:00:00 Intro 01:02 Introduction to Governance Futures Podcast 02:39 The Importance of Human-Centered Governance 03:57 Rebuilding Aragon: The Need for Modular Governance 04:18 The Evolution of DAOs and Governance Models 09:57 Decentralization: A Spectrum of Control 12:13 Aragon's Mission and Governance Infrastructure 14:08 Decentralization: Leadership vs. Control 18:39 Challenges of Multisig and On-Chain Governance 21:55 The Role of DAOs as Executors 23:22 Reframing DAOs and Governance Structures 24:48 The Evolution of Aragon and Its Vision 26:29 Introducing Aragon OS X: A Modular Governance Framework 30:03 Dual Governance: Aligning Interests in DAOs 36:05 Regulatory Impact on Governance 43:59 Proactive Governance in a Changing Regulatory Landscape 46:04 Building Adaptive Organizations 47:52 Core Principles of Successful Governance 49:13 Aligning Incentives for Token Holders 51:37 The Role of Trust in Governance 53:00 AI's Impact on Future Governance 57:15 Understanding Gauges in Tokenomics 01:01:06 Challenges in Modular Governance Adoption 01:04:26 Quiz Segment 01:05:32 Outro

In this episode, hosts Jamilya Kamalova and Eugene Leventhal sit down with Rafael Fernández and Shelby Steidl from ZK Sync to unpack one of the most forward-thinking governance frameworks in Web3 today. Rafa is a Director and Governance Lead at the ZKsync Association, where he supports protocol governance design, token mechanics, and operations. His work spans the entire governance system design, from contracts, to legal architecture for regulatory alignment, and scalable processes for decentralization. He brings a background in organizational design and analytics to help ZKsync evolve governance into public infrastructure—credible, composable, and built for the long term. Based in Berlin, he's always ready to share stories of niche too-online lore and previous research on digital swarms. Shelby is the Governance Experience Lead for ZKsync Governance. She is responsible for all things governance UX, resource management & creation, Delegate coordination, and supports with token mechanics development for Token Programs. She previously worked on governance at Radworks (RadicleDAO), bringing 3 years of gov ops experience to help launch and cultivate the ZKsync governance system. Shelby enjoys flat whites, a groovy house beat, and contributing to the grand experiment that is decentralized governance.From their personal journeys into blockchain governance to the challenges of designing systems that balance decentralization with accountability, Rafa and Shelby share the ideas that shaped ZK Sync’s approach. We dive into their use of the Austrian Association model to provide liability protection through opt-in legal membership, the design of a three-body governance system (Token Assembly, Security Council, Guardians), and the importance of creating governance environments that foster participation, mission alignment, and cultural integrity. The discussion goes deep into the mechanics, exploring ZK Sync’s capped minter system and modular token mechanics that enable on-demand minting while embedding safeguards, accountability, and legal enforceability through ZK GPS. The guests share how these systems prevent abuse, measure performance, and keep governance adaptable without sacrificing trustlessness. From DAO evolution and mission-centered safeguards to performance metrics and the future of decentralized decision-making, this conversation offers practical insights for protocol founders, DAO contributors, and governance researchers alike. Whether you’re building in crypto or studying the intersection of blockchain and law, this is a rare look at how to design governance that is as resilient as it is innovative — and why the future may be all about simplifying complexity. Some of the papers we mentioned during the conversation:- "The Swarm and the Formation" by Rafael Fernández https://summerofprotocols.com/research/the-swarm-and-the-formation - "ZK Nation docs": https://docs.zknation.io/voting-and-delegation/zksync-governance-101#how-are-token-allocation-through-governance-different-at-zksync-than-other-onchain-organizations.Timestamps 00:00 Intro & Teaser 02:57 Origins of Governance in Blockchain 05:37 The Role of Environment in Governance Design 08:22 Creating Safe Spaces for Governance Discussions 11:01 Understanding the Waters of Governance 14:03 The Evolution of DAO Governance Models 16:46 Legal Structures in Governance: The Austrian Association 19:38 ZK Sync's Unique Governance Framework 22:27 On-Chain Enforceability and Accountability 24:57 Mission-Centered Governance and the Role of Guardians 39:58 Guardians and Their Role in Governance 42:16 Decentralized Governance Structure 50:34 Capped Minters and Token Governance 01:00:27 Safeguards and Accountability in Minting Rights 01:04:52 Measuring Governance Performance 01:11:23 The Future of Governance 01:14:00 Quick Fire Quiz - One Word & Conclusion

In this episode of Governance Futures, Eugene and Jamilya speak with Dennison Bertram, co-founder and CEO of Tally, about the evolving role of regulation, DAOs, and decentralization. We dig into the implications of the Clarity Act, why tooling isn't the only thing DAOs need, and how state alignment is becoming essential to scale Web3 governance. This is a thoughtful, provocative conversation for anyone building or thinking critically about the future of crypto, compliance, and the critical role of legal frameworks in shaping the next era of web3 innovation. Timestamps00:00 Teaser and Introduction03:50 Building crypto for real inclusion06:10 Tech as a double-edged sword08:50 Missed opportunities with NFTs & innovation11:47 The importance of clear crypto regulation13:15 From tools to infrastructure: evolution of Tally15:30 DAOs as the next corporate structure19:59 What does decentralization *really* mean?27:24 How the Clarity Act changes the game33:38 Why regulation and incorporation matter38:00 The risk of operating in a legal gray zone42:00 The new age of institution-friendly crypto47:25 Global regulatory competition & jurisdiction shopping54:34 State bailouts & crypto collapse responses59:18 What DAOs still get wrong1:01:16 Why builders really need clarity1:06:36 Regulation isn't top-down—it's collaborative1:10:36 Quiz: Governance in one word1:11:37 Outro

In this episode, together with James and Dani we dive deep into the revolutionary concept of "liquefaction" and its profound implications for Web3 identity, governance, and ownership. We explore how this groundbreaking research challenges fundamental assumptions about blockchain addresses, private keys, and digital identity, while examining the emergence of Dark DAOs as anonymous voting cartels that could reshape decentralized governance forever. James Austgen is a PhD student at Cornell Tech and is advised by Professor Ari Juels. His research interests include blockchains, privacy, next-generation wallets, and TEEs. Dani Vilardell is a second year PhD student at Cornell Tech and is advised by Professor Ari Juels. With a background in mathematics and electrical engineering, his interests include Zero Knowledge Proofs, Blockchains and Privacy. James and Dani are researchers working on liquefaction, which enables the transfer of assets or privileges that are meant to be nontransferable/illiquid. Their work exposes critical vulnerabilities in current Web3 systems, from locked token mechanisms to NFT exclusivity, while also revealing new possibilities for privacy-preserving applications and cross-chain interoperability. In this episode, James and Dani share invaluable insights from their cutting-edge research on liquefaction, shedding light on vote buying, identity theft risks, and the transformative potential of programmable private key sharing. Learn about complete knowledge proofs, trusted execution environments, the ethics of identity rental, and the future of governance in a post-liquefaction world. Don't miss this comprehensive discussion that bridges cryptography, governance theory, and the evolving landscape of digital ownership. Some of the work we mention in the episode: - Austgen, J., Fàbrega, A., Allen, S., Babel, K., Kelkar, M., & Juels, A. (2023, November 1). DAO decentralization: Voting-bloc entropy, bribery, and dark DAOs (v1.0) [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.03530 - Austgen, J., Fàbrega, A., Kelkar, M., Vilardell, D., Allen, S., Babel, K., Yu, J., & Juels, A. (2024). *Liquefaction: Privately Liquefying Blockchain Assets*. Cornell Tech. Available via: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.02634 - Take my Ape experiment : https://takemyape.com/   Chapter Timestamps00:00 - Intro & Teaser02:55 - Welcome and Setup: Web3 Fragility & Liquefaction04:46 - How Liquefaction Enhances Private Coordination06:26 - Redefining Ownership Assumptions in Web308:00 - Lock Tokens & Undermining Incentives09:59 - Dark DAOs and Vote Selling Risks12:10 - State of Decentralization in DAOs13:55 - Dark DAOs as Decentralized Cartels15:17 - Identity Theft via Liquefaction16:56 - "Take My Ape" Experiment Explained19:39 - Renting Reputations & Board Ape Access22:00 - Complete Knowledge as a Defensive Mechanism24:55 - Technical Breakdown: Why TEE > MPC27:07 - Ethical Questions of Open Sourcing Dark DAOs28:10 - Constructive Use Cases: Treasury, Auctions, Bridges30:15 - Overlay Smart Contracts and Interoperability32:00 - Reputation Rental Marketplaces34:12 - Per-Asset Policies & Selective Liquefaction36:00 - Asset Sharing & Community Coordination37:45 - Rethinking Governance Models39:10 - Governance Marketplaces & Vote Monetization41:00 - AI Delegates in DAOs: Risks and Coordination43:00 - Ethics of Renting Identity & Credential Markets45:00 - Final Thoughts: Future of Governance46:50 - Quiz: One-word Governance FuturesListen to this episode on all platforms: Apple : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gov-futures-trailer/id1823028614?i=1000714675608 Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/show/6QRkrWmq21Z66jRJtN2UIuFollow us on X: https://x.com/gov_futures

In this episode, together with Ellie Rennie we dive deep into the intricacies of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). We explore the dynamics of human coordination versus automated systems, the impact of AI on DAOs, and the critical components that make or break decentralized communities. Ellie Rennie is a Professor at RMIT University. Her research is examining permissionless systems and on-chain communities using ethnographic methods, including validator governance, contribution systems and infrastructures for the collective governance of knowledge. Ellie is also a Research Director within the international research network Metagov and an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society. In this episode, Ellie shares invaluable insights from her extensive research on decentralized communities, shedding light on collusion, attention problems, and the transformative potential of DAOs. Learn about the Knowledge Organization Infrastructure (KOI), its application in DAOs, and the concept of contribution systems and more. Don't miss this comprehensive discussion that bridges organizational theory, ethnography, and cutting-edge technology. Some of the work by Professor Ellie Rennie mentioned in the episode: - Rennie, E. (2024, July 6). What is a good DAO (and how do we know)? Medium. https://ellierennie.medium.com/what-is-a-good-dao-and-how-do-we-know-2efa2943997b - Rennie, E. (2023, September 28). On Governators. Medium. https://ellierennie.medium.com/on-governators-92ec2697829d - Rennie, E. (2024, April 24). KOI-Pond: The creation of a synthetic deme. Medium. https://ellierennie.medium.com/koi-pond-the-creation-of-a-synthetic-deme-999a6f1f3426 - Rennie, E., & Potts, J. (2024, November 11). Contribution systems. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5018758 Listen to this episode on all platforms: Apple : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gov-futures-trailer/id1823028614?i=1000714675608 Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/show/6QRkrWmq21Z66jRJtN2UIu Follow us on X: https://x.com/gov_futures  Timestamps: 00:00 Teaser and Introduction02:23 Introduction and Warm-Up03:33 Understanding DAOs: Good vs. Bad04:38 Human Coordination in DAOs08:21 Technological and Human Elements in DAOs10:36 The Role of AI in DAOs18:40 Knowledge Systems and Governance28:46 KOI: Knowledge Organization Infrastructure43:34 Contribution Systems in DAOs59:48 Final Thoughts and Quickfire Questions

In this episode of The Governance Futures Podcast, Eugene Leventhal & Jamilya Kamalova speak with Angela Walch about the promises and pitfalls of replacing failing institutions with technologies like crypto and AI. Angela discusses the collapse of rule of law, the myth of “tech as governance,” and the limits of algorithmic solutions to political problems. Together, we explore how protocol systems assign roles that shape our behavior - and what Web3 emergencies reveal about where power really lies. Angela Walch is an independent researcher and writer. She writes the Angela Walch publication on Substack, and was a core researcher in the Ethereum Foundation’s inaugural Summer of Protocols program in 2023. Her most recent work is The Protocol System Experience, which provides a conceptual framework for human rule systems of all kinds. Angela was a Professor of Law at St. Mary’s University of Law from 2012 - 2023. Her research has focused on blockchain governance, decentralization, systemic risks, blockchain language, and the intersection between these areas. Her work on blockchains as financial market infrastructure, the operational risks of open source software governance, the role of software developers as fiduciaries of public blockchains, and the role of miners as intermediaries has been foundational to the field of cryptoeconomic systems, and is recognized internationally. Angela has advised policy makers and regulators around the world, including the Federal Reserve, the White House, the Bank of England, and the BIS, and has testified before the US Senate Banking Committee. Her research has been featured in The Economist, Bloomberg, Wired, Coindesk, and more. Angela's work and publications we mention in this episode: * “Blockchain Emergencies & Open-Source Software Governance: Is ‘Rough Consensus’ a Suicide Pact?” (2021) https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1631&context=facarticles* Substack Note on Governance and Protocols https://substack.com/@angelawalch/note/c-106330495 * "The Fundamentals of Protocol Systems” (2023) https://summerofprotocols.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/The-Fundamentals-of-Protocol-Systems-Angela-Walch.pdf Listen to this episode on all platforms: - Apple : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gov-futures-trailer/id1823028614?i=1000714675608- Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/show/6QRkrWmq21Z66jRJtN2UIu- Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Gov_Futures- Follow us on X: https://x.com/gov_futures   00:00  Teaser and Introduction 02:10   Setting the Stage 02:20  Institutional Collapse and Tech's Role 03:04  Skepticism Towards Tech Replacing Institutions 05:56 Misconceptions About Technology 09:09  AI and Crypto Governance Challenges 12:59 Roles and Perceptions in Governance Systems 22:02 Decentralization and Power Dynamics 23:52 Emergency Responses and Governance Legitimacy 31:39 Addressing Conflict of Interest in DAOs 34:17 The Mythology of Governance Systems 38:17 Handling Emergencies in Crypto and Beyond 44:05 The Role of Emergency Response Groups in Web3 49:39  Building Robust Governance Systems from Scratch 55:15  The Importance of Funding Basic Research 58:38  Quick-Fire Quiz and Conclusion

In this ’About Us’ episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya Kamalova and Eugene Leventhal from the Scroll Foundation discuss their backgrounds, experiences, and passions in decentralized governance and Web3.

In this episode of The Governance Futures Podcast, hosts Jamilya Kamalova and Eugene Leventhal sit down with Eric Alston to explore the evolving dynamics of governance. Eric is a Scholar in Residence in the Finance Division at CU Boulder. His research and teaching draw from institutional analysis, law and economics, and constitutional design. He pursues questions ranging from institutional and organizational theory to digital governance across a wide range of network-coordinated contexts. Together, we unpack the limitations of democratic decision-making, the productive role of conflict, and how constitutions shape resilience in both traditional and decentralized organizations. Drawing from his academic work and his experience advising governments and DAOs, Eric offers sharp insights into the future of governance. The conversation also touches on the importance of an animating purpose in organizational design and what’s at stake in building robust systems for digitally networked communities. Tune in for a deep and thought-provoking conversation at the intersection of theory and practice. Academic work we mention in this episode: - “Governance as Conflict: Constitution of Shared Values Defining Future Margins of Disagreement” (2022) – by Eric Alston https://law.mit.edu/pub/governanceasconflict/release/1 - “What Constitutes a Constitution?” – by Michael Zargham, Eric Alston, Kelsie Nabben, and Ilan Ben-Meir (2023) https://blog.block.science/what-constitutes-a-constitution/ - "Constitutions and Blockchains: Competitive Governance of Fundamental Rule Sets" – by Eric Alston (2019) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3358434 Check new print: - "Handbook on Institutions and Complexity" Edited by Eric Alston , Lee J. Alston , and Bernardo Mueller (2025) https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollbook/book/9781035309726/9781035309726.xml Listen to this episode on all platforms: - Apple : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/gov-futures-trailer/id1823028614?i=1000714675608 - Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6QRkrWmq21Z66jRJtN2UIu - Follow us on X : https://x.com/gov_futures   00:00 Teaser 00:48 Introduction to The Governance Futures Podcast 01:01 Meet Eric Alston: Scholar and Governance Expert 01:37 Exploring Governance and Democratic Decision Making 02:32 Defining Governance in a Digital Context 02:57 The Complexities of Blockchain Governance 06:47 Limitations of Democratic Decision Making 12:29 The Concept of Animating Purpose in Organizations 21:39 Constitutional Design and Governance Structures 34:47 Delegated Authority and Agency Costs 35:34 Separation of Competencies and Review Functions 37:04 Constraints on Governance Authority 40:27 Governance as Conflict 42:19 Emergent Nature of Conflict 53:56 Decentralization and Subsidiarity 59:13 Future of Web3 Governance 01:03:24 Quick Fire Quiz 01:04:40 Conclusion and Acknowledgements

Welcome to Governance Futures - a podcast where we explore how governance works (and fails) in Web3 and beyond. Hosted by Eugene Leventhal and Jamilya Kamalova, each episode dives deep into the evolving principles of coordination, accountability, and collective decision-making in decentralized ecosystems. This is the trailer for the forthcoming podcast. Subscribe to get the first episode of our first season, coming weekly every Thursday starting July 3, 2025.  Subscribe and join us in shaping what comes next.