That’s great idea. We can brainstorm some ideas around that and mock up something.
Everyone here, feel free to suggest or recommend what you’d like to see on profiles in the context of personal tokens.
Absolutely! The “TRUST” button is actually supposed to initiate the exchange of personal tokens between players. It’s basically “add as friend” but with skin in the game 
Other than there, it probably deserves it’s own container. If not a container specifically for just tokens, then a containers for “My offerings”. Would love to see more ideas & mockups around this.
what needs building from a front-end perspective?
You can check out what’s going on in the #profiles channel or the repo, but it would probably be the best if you could join us later today & get updated.
The community call is in 4 hours 30 minutes in the Discord @luxumbra
2 Likes
Personal Token Interface
Here is the beginning of a draft, but it gives a basic intuition.
There’s a very similar intuition behind the blocks you can add to the profile. I see major potential in being able to import blocks that allow you to connect personal token features (voting, bidding, scheduling, etc.). I’m imagining that these could be built on L2 since most of these services won’t be trustless anyways.
I think one major differentiator of these profiles could be as an interface to one’s personal economy.
How I can help
I’m particularly interested in mechanism design behind personal economies, and would be excited to help on that front.
1 Like
I think the focus for personalTokens development should be to increase the interconnectivity between personalTokens and tools/dApps/protocols. Which tools/dApps/protocols i can integrate the personalToken with?
Tools like lbry.com, aragon dApps, uniswap, melonport, storj etc. individuals can integrate those dApps into their profile and linke them with their tokens so people can use uniswap to swap eth for personalTokenX and then use the X token to invest in the personal fund of the user (melonport), use the X token to access files on storj, use X token to vote in the personal DAO via aragon Voting dApp, use the token to buy stuff on lbry with a discount etc.
Agreed. I’m envisioning the blocks in the interface as simple UIs to access the composed tools/dapps/protocols that the creator added (the vision you describe). I guess you could think of it as a personal dapp store, with the magic of extensibility and composability.
1 Like
I like the idea of a personal app store. What about if MyMeta becomes like Aragon but instead of a platform where communities can create DAOs can install Aragon Apps to extend the functionality of the community DAO MyMeta is a Platform where individuals can create personal DAOs and extend their personal DAO with MyMeta Apps. Probably lots of Apps which are useful for community DAOs can be useful for individual DAOs and vice versa.
1 Like
Great thinking! That’s the idea behind the MyMeta Dashboard, just need to focus on building the initial profiles first before getting into things like integrating dapps into these containers etc.
We could use something like: https://www.oneclickdapp.com/
who decides what the idea of MyMeta is? What you described in your post is a
Would be really helpful if the meta community can vote on the vision / milestones of metagame in a clean interface. I think this is really essential part for a community to agree on the path forward and should be the priority focus of metagame.
Everybody & nobody.
I put up my vision of what MyMeta could be, then it’s up to whoever decides to build it.
We do have voting in Aragon & on Discord but we don’t use it when there isn’t anything contentious. Voting is basically just a dispute resolution system, not a way to move forward. 
2 Likes
This is one of my favorite projects so far. LET’S GO OCTO’s!
May I bring this 9-month-old convo back to life?
We need to clarify the scope of MyMeta so the Builders, Shillers, Headhunters, Designers, Bridgebuilders, and Writers can draft roadmaps that are congruent/interoperable with each other.
As stated in the Wiki, currently, the profiles have:
- A basic profile with description & links to other fragments of your identity
- Timezone & availability per week
- Alignment/personality indicator
- Skills tags
- DAOHaus DAO memberships
- NFTs
ok! But what’s next? Where are we going? How can we define version 1.0? What do we do when v1 is ready?
Here is some context. In GitHub, we have the issue #501 called Roadmap. This “Roadmap” is currently blocked by two issues:
Issue #769 known as Use the Ceramic Network as Source of Truth.
[Issue "264](http://Add new block – functionality & templates) known as Add new block – functionality & templates.
Issue #264 seems finished, but it is not yet available to be used. Are there any roadblocks?
Both Issue #769 and #501 seem to have a well-defined set of issues that are needed. However, some of these do not have assignees, which is very good. It enables new people to take them as quests.
The #769 has a deadline for Nov 10th, 2021. Is it going to be reached? If not, which of those things are essential to unblock the #501?
Ok. Let’s make a stop here and answer: Does MyMeta v1 mean finishing Issues 769, 264, and 501?
Can we collectively answer what are MyMeta’s V1:
a) Expected times of completion
b) Roadblocks
c) Talent needed
d) Initial target audience
After you answer the above question, please check this presentation of MetaOS/MetaGame, and this presentation exclusively of MetaOS.
It seems there’s a confusion between MyMeta and MetaOS, which needs to be clarified to continue. In my understanding, MetaOS is the dashboard that collects the things related to building a MetaSociety, i.e., having decentralized profiles (MyMeta), having ways of setting quests for everybody to take (WayFare or Quests), having a way to recognize, validate, and match skills (Chievmint or DeepSkills.io), etc.
We need to have clarification on what constitutes MetaOS and what current Dapps fit there (that are important to offer an initial value). The same thing applies to understanding what aggregation of modules constitutes MyMeta, and what other integrations fit there to make it valuable for our initial target audience.
What would help is to visually understand where does each build fits into the bigger picture:
MetaOS>DeepSkills.io Dapp / MetaOS>Quests Dapp or Fayware Dapp
MetaOS>MyMeta>Skills module (coming from DeepSkills)
MetaOS>MyMeta>Quests module (coming from Quests Dapp or Fayware Dapp)
Then, have a MetaRoadmap, which we can shill, write, headhunt, and bridge-build. With this I mean:
MetaOS needs X, Y, Z set of issues to reach V1. Here are the quests to make them happen.
D Date is the expected time to have these issues done.
MetaOS has N quests that are blocking M quests.
Additionally,
The Shiller Guild will perform “this” strategy to promote MetaOS.
The Writers Guild will write “these” playbooks as documentation to enable new users to understand and use the X, Y, Z MetaOS functions.
The Bridgebuilders Guild will bring “these” orgs/protocols/solutions to increase the use-value of MetaOS and “these” solutions to accelerate building/designing/headhunting/shilling MetaOS.
The Headhunters will bring the talents required by the Builders and Designers Guilds to complete the N quests.
Same for MyMeta…
Obviously, all the above not set by a top-down focus, but by the Engaged Octos and Players actively contributing in making MetaOS and MyMeta reality.
I encourage everybody reading this to ask all questions related to MyMeta and MetaOS, enrich the conversation with your experience in building these foundational blocks of MetaGame’s vision, and use the Notion’s Raid drafting to set up a collaborative strategy drafting, Zenhub to publicly track the progress of issues, and the Tokenlog to collectively decide which are the things most needed.
–
Sorry for the long post. It took me a while to go through the info, understand it, and make my mind on the things missing. It might help others to go through the same process.
2 Likes
I mean, my problem here has typically been the lack of road-mapping outside of GitHub. As far as I can figure, Zenhub only tracks GitHub issues, so we can’t use it as a master roadmap for all of MetaGame.
The relevance here concerns the why. Why do we care what MyMeta v1 is? The answer to that is the context to the larger organization. Such as when we fund-raise, mark phase changes, and allocate resources across projects. v1 is just a number, some major software never even hits “v1” while still being in production. Perfect example is Docusaurus, which is still considered beta. I also remember Gmail still being in Beta years(ok maybe months) after it was already the go-to email client.
To this end we need to figure out a good way of road-mapping MetaGame as an entire organization; so we can set dates. In the meantime we’ll (I say we but I don’t actually do anything) keep working on MyMeta and improving it. In terms of next steps, Peth and the head builders, Alec and Michiel have agreed to start the fundraising process and marketing of MyMeta.
In light of that, to answer the actual question here, yes, I’d consider completing the listed issues to be v1. It’s important to note though, that as a roadmap issue #501 will/should perpetually change, and it should be edited to reflect the v1 benchmark. Either the listed bullets should be divided between 1.0 and the next version, or it should be renamed “Roadmap to 1.0” and then closed and a new roadmap ticket opened for 1.1 etc.
Added note, I believe #769 is in the purview of @dysbulic and he can probably chime in on it’s estimated completion date. I know he uses ZenHub so if you pulled the Nov. 10th date from there it’s likely accurate to his estimation.
1 Like
I think myMeta is a Gamechanger with the right improvements, the presentation made regarding channels my thoughts on myMeta/MetaOS…
- Profile Persona’s
- Psychometrics
- Radical Transaparency
- Team Dimensions etc
- Inter-profile relationships (Contracting & feedback)
Featured: https://www.figma.com/proto/RkoiiaqEGLqfgLPagTHtTu/META.OS-Presentation?page-id=0%3A1&node-id=7%3A76
There had been previously a lot of back & forth regarding, if these ideas concern myMeta or MetaOS and for me I’d just like the features. In regards to roadmap I’d like some of these things considered within the future of myMeta past the Whitlabeling to other communities which is numero uno as things stand!
I think there are 3 things that make MyMeta 1.0:
- Finishing the migration to ceramic/having the whole profile creation flow go through MyMeta
- Role select
- Add new block (at least simple link embeds)
Though it also depends on whether we see MyMeta as an internal tool or something we can offer to other DAOs & platforms… In which case, we’re still pretty far from 1.0.
If MyMeta and MetaOS are priorities we need a Raid to make them happen.
How to Raid?
If Builders and Designers have established that v1 (or “launch” version) means completing:
* Finishing the migration to ceramic/having the whole profile creation flow go through MyMeta (Seems finished, but not clear if so, check my comment at the bottom)
* Role select (last message in issue is from Sept 28th)
* Add new block (Seems finished, but also abandoned)
A Raid that is formed by at least a HeadHunter, a Shiller, a Builder, and a Designer needs to get together to define what things are required and not yet defined as the product-market-fit.
Then, break down the needs into Quests. The Quests will allow the Guilds to flood with Octos to make them happen!
1 Like
I was under the impression the raid is ongoing and pretty much the only raid of the builders rn. Don’t understand why headhunter and shiller are part of that. I mean headhunters should hunt for some builders sure. Shillers should shill the concept of mymeta as it’s being made and as it is being discussed. Some new builders should be engaged and plugged in to the project. But as far as I’ve seen, the cross disciplinary guild mymeta call didn’t really accomplish much, other than saying things in different lingos. For non coders saying hurry, and coders saying yea well bring me more builders or meh. So headhunting still needs a champion, and builders that we have not doing stuff, need to start building. Listing off features to a crew of 3 half time builders just seems stressful. Making it urgent so you can use it to headhunt builders in training, seems a bit backwards honestly.
Thanks Tommy. I agree, putting pressure to the 3 builders in listing off so-defined quest might no be the best solution atm. However, the call didn’t have the goal to define those requirements, but to listen and discuss the multiple perspectives of those willing to see MyMeta built.
At least to me, the call opened another approach of getting things done in a way that provides several outcomes. @dysbulic offered the pair-programming approach.
The pair-programming approach does not require setting up a long list of quests, as thought and requested first by me. Instead, it requires goals. On this line, I didn’t get the “bring me more coders or meh” feeling. In fact, I felt a more a collaborative mindset. “Bring coders which are willing to learn the context of MG and start building themselves”:
The Navigator not only guides what to code but subtly provides its essence on how things are done. The Driver gets the style and context. Then things can be carried out more organically.
Regarding the Shilling, Bridgebuilding and Headhunting comment. I see headhunting as an activity that needs to be done with accuracy, based on defined requirements. Otherwise, we spent time and resources “onboarding” people who come and go, without leaving a product contribution.
Shilling and bridgebuilding should also bring massive people onboard, however, if we do it with product goals in mind, we will have way more impact than with general strategies.
Finally, we will have updates when BAM answers after their Bootcamp with NEAR. So we can continue the conversation, now with at least more internal insights from MyMeta 
1 Like
Afraid I’ll have to echo Tommy here & say I too didn’t see much use of having another call about MyMeta. Not sure what the outcome was as I was there only briefly before I had to go on to a call with potential investors, but from when the call was planned, I got the impression we’ll be talking about the same stuff we already talked multiple times. Dysbulic has been offering & doing pair programming with people for almost as long as he’s been around…
I think its fairly clear cut what needs to be done:
- We have a list of issues sorted by priorities for suing MyMeta internally
- We have a path laid out for making MyMeta useful for other projects (a re-architecture informed by the calls with other projects that will start happening next week)
- We have builder onboarding docs as well as builder calls & pair programming that helps builders get up to speed on what needs to be done & how to do it
So really, I think the main thing that needs to happen on the non-technical side right now is headhunting to bring more active developers
okey… there are some things that are incongruent between the champions ring’s feedback and the discourse. But, I’ll believe that MyMeta will unfold by bringing Devs to it. Say no more. I’ll focus on that.
1 Like
Yeah… The feedback that I’ve received yesterday evening from a departing player kind of completely changed my thinking about it…
We can start solving the issue of no-good-first-issues & lame builder aligns with current builders but seems like the focus should really be on finding a PM & a senior dev that is willing to work close to if not full time. I’m no longer convinced that hackathons are the solution although the current pay & liquidity aren’t really fit for a highly skilled senior dev anyway… 
Idk, but wherever you decide to headhunt, the two most important question would probably be “would you be interested in working full time & how much $ is enough for you?”
Here’s links to the old headhunting board as well as the “new” one which somebody started months ago but never finished & merged the two. So maybe the first step would be to dig through the ideas there, clean up the cards & merge the boards?