Oh Catalyst, Where Art Thou - Vol. III
Non functional hazards in Project Catalyst
What are non functional hazards?
In the book “Self Organising Multi Agent Systems” by Jeremy Pitt, they are defined as stemming from sources that have no direct connection to a specific function in the system the hazard is expressed in.
Non functional hazards running rampant relate to the described inter subjective parasite activity in Volume I. The energy that is spent on friction, conflict and disasters originating from these hazards are a nourishing source of sustenance for the parasites, as was described in Volume II.
Next a close look at the individual hazards and why they are important to consider.
Afterwards some thoughts how they could potentially be expressed within ProjectCatalyst or other web3 communities in general, and expand on some tactics to mitigate hazards.
While ending with a specific example of a functional hazard and how it can be mitigated.
The 8 Hazards
Co-dependence and competition: Each agent is reliant on other agents for successful accomplishment of its own goals, but those other agents may themselves be unreliable, for example, if the agents are competing for the same (scarce) resources.
Trust: The environment, network topology and constituent agents can vary rapidly and unpredictably. Therefore, each agent will frequently be exposed to "first encounter' problems, i.e. how to interact in a situation or with an agent that has not been previously encountered; and to 'nth encounter' problems, how to interact in a situation for which knowledge of previous encounters can be leveraged.
Partiality and uncertainty of knowledge: Because interactions are asynchronous, in parallel, and peer-to-peer, this implies that there is no single source of true' knowledge. Therefore, each agent only has a partial (and possibly subjective) knowledge of the overall system and some of its other agents; furthermore the union of these knowledge bases may be inconsistent (this does not mean that it is necessary to “give up” logic for open systems (Kowalski, 1988)).
Expectation of error: Actuality (what is the case) and ideality (what ought to be the case) do not necessarily coincide. In other words, an agent may fail to comply with behaviour specified by some codification of systemic rules (or due process). There are, however, a variety of potential causes, for example by accident, convenience, necessity or malice. It may also be that the rule is inefficient or even wrong. It is necessary to distinguish between these causes in order to recover from them through the enforcement of corrective action, which can range from forgiveness or punishment to modification of the rules.
Economy of scarcity with indivisible goods: In an economy of scarcity, there are insufficient resources for every agent to get everything that they wanted, but each agent has to get all that they wanted because a fraction is useless. In such circumstances, we distinguish between 'satisfy', 'suffice' and satisfice: satisfy means to meet someone's wants fully, and suffice means to meet someone's needs adequately. To satisfice means to get a 'good enough' or 'least bad' solution when the optimal solution is not available (Simon, 1956). However, given enough time, it may be sufficient to satisfice (i.e. to give an agent all of what they want some of the time, when some of what they want all of the time is no help, and all of what they want all of the time is not an option).
Endogenous resources: In a system where all the resources are provided by the appropriators themselves, as in a sensor network or a micro-grid, all tasks such as determining the resource allocation method, computing the resource allocation itself, and monitoring the resource appropriation must be paid for' from the very same resources. If too much resources are expended on these activities, it might leave nothing for 'real' jobs (both Pitt and Schaumeier (2012) and Balke et al. (2013)) report how the costs of needless and/or excessive monitoring deplete resources in this way).
No full disclosure: Hewitt referred to this as arm's length relationships, but the essential problem is that agents are autonomous and internal states cannot be checked for compliance (with conventional rules). Moreover, incoming ('new-to-the-system") agents might not have all the information required for "appropriate' behaviour, or for reliable investment decisions (e.g. contributing to a common pool).
Self-determination: There is no central (software) controller, and decision-making may be too fast, frequent or complex for intervention by a (human) operator. Therefore, the agents have to solve the problem for which the system has been developed, cope with the three contextual issues above, and resolve any of these hazards by and between themselves. There is no guarantee that this will be done perfectly However, the benefit of an 'open systems' perspective is that it offers a prescriptive (i.e. rule-based) approach to establishing the information-processing foundations of decision-making and action taking in organisations. In particular, Hewitt proposes due process as the central activity for generating sound, relevant and reliable information (in an organisational rather than judicial context). He notes also that: due process provides a record of decision-making processes, which can be referenced later, e.g. for purposes of accountability (cf. Cranefield et al., 2018); due process is supposed to be reflective (see Pitt et al., 2020a); and logical reasoning takes places within due process.
Our approach will also take a prescriptive, logic-based approach to reinforcing the information-processing foundations of action-taking and decision-making in institutions, and of institutions themselves, using a language and reasoning beyond (but building on) the micro theories of Hewitt. Additionally, this approach will provide the logical and computational foundations for activities beyond due process, and develop algorithmic approaches to justice, social construction, knowledge management, governance and reflection.
“Self Organising Multi Agent Systems” by Jeremy Pitt, p.11-13
Project Catalyst & Non Functional Hazards
Now, let's explore how some of these hazards may apply to Project Catalyst, as described in the second volume [LINK], and web3 communities in genera.l
Co-dependence and competition: Project Catalyst operates as a decentralized funding mechanism within the Cardano ecosystem. While it encourages collaboration and cooperation among participants, there may also be elements of co-dependence and competition. Participants may rely on each other's contributions and compete for limited funding resources, potentially leading to conflicts or challenges in decision-making processes.
Trust: Trust is a critical aspect of any self-organizing system, including Project Catalyst. As the article emphasizes the importance of community-driven funding and governance, establishing and maintaining trust among participants becomes crucial. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and fair decision-making processes can help mitigate trust-related hazards.
Partiality and uncertainty of knowledge: In self-organizing systems like Project Catalyst, participants possess diverse knowledge and perspectives. However, this diversity can also lead to partiality and uncertainty. Different participants may have varying levels of information or biases that can impact decision-making, potentially hindering the system's effectiveness.
Economy of scarcity with indivisible goods: Project Catalyst involves allocating funding for various proposals. Since resources are limited, there is a potential hazard of scarcity, particularly when dealing with indivisible goods. Deciding how to allocate limited funds among competing proposals can be challenging and may lead to dissatisfaction or inefficiencies.
Endogenous resources: The article does not explicitly discuss the concept of endogenous resources in the context of Project Catalyst. However, in self organizing systems, the availability and allocation of resources play a significant role. It is important to consider how resources, such as funding or expertise, are generated and utilized within the system.
Duck & Cover
Here shall be provided some starting points for deliberation on strategies to mitigate non functional hazards in the context of Project Catalyst and web3 communities:
Mitigating co-dependence and competition hazards:
- Clear guidelines and criteria: Establish clear guidelines and criteria for project evaluation and funding allocation. This can help create a transparent and standardized process, reducing the potential for subjective biases or undue competition among participants.
- Collaboration and coordination: Encourage collaboration and coordination among participants by fostering a sense of community and shared purpose. Promote the idea of working together on complementary projects rather than viewing each other as competitors.
- Resource diversification: Explore ways to diversify resources beyond monetary funding. This can include leveraging expertise, networking opportunities, or mentorship programs to ensure that participants have access to a range of resources that go beyond financial support.
- Continuous feedback and improvement: Implement mechanisms for continuous feedback and improvement in the decision-making process. Regularly evaluate and refine the system based on the experiences and insights gained from previous funding cycles to foster a more inclusive and cooperative environment.
Mitigating trust-related hazards:
- Transparent governance: Establish transparent governance mechanisms for Project Catalyst. Clearly define roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes, ensuring that participants understand how decisions are made and how their input is valued.
- Open communication channels: Foster open communication channels to allow participants to express their concerns, share feedback, and contribute to the decision-making process. Regular updates, forums, and dedicated communication platforms can help build trust and encourage active participation.
- Accountability and auditing: Ensure accountability by implementing mechanisms to track and assess the outcomes of funded projects. Regular auditing and reporting on the progress and impact of projects can help build trust among participants and stakeholders.
- Community moderation: Implement community moderation and dispute transformation mechanisms to address conflicts or disagreements that may arise. Having a clear process to handle disputes fairly and efficiently can help maintain trust and mitigate potential risks.
Mitigating partiality and uncertainty of knowledge:
- Knowledge sharing and collaboration: Foster an environment of knowledge sharing and collaboration within Project Catalyst. Encourage participants to openly share their expertise, insights, and perspectives. This helps to reduce partiality by ensuring a more comprehensive understanding of the proposals and projects being evaluated.
- Diverse evaluators and review processes: Ensure diversity in the composition of evaluators and reviewers involved in decision-making processes. By including individuals with different backgrounds, experiences, and areas of expertise, you can minimize the risk of partiality and introduce a wider range of perspectives. Implement multiple layers of evaluation and review to validate and cross-check assessments.
- Transparent evaluation criteria: Establish clear and transparent evaluation criteria for proposals. Provide guidelines that outline the specific factors and metrics used to assess projects. This clarity helps minimize ambiguity and uncertainty, allowing participants to understand the basis on which their proposals are being evaluated.
- Expert consultation: Consider involving external experts or consultants to provide impartial insights and advice. These experts can bring their specialized knowledge to evaluate proposals, reducing the reliance solely on internal perspectives and minimizing partiality.
- Continuous learning and improvement: Encourage continuous learning and improvement within Project Catalyst. Emphasize the importance of acquiring new knowledge, refining evaluation methodologies, and incorporating best practices from other similar initiatives. Regularly review and update evaluation processes based on lessons learned to enhance objectivity and reduce uncertainty.
Mitigating the expectation of error hazards:
- Transparent decision-making processes: Establish clear and transparent decision-making processes within Project Catalyst. Communicate these processes to participants to ensure they understand how decisions are made and the mechanisms for addressing any errors or misunderstandings. Transparency instills confidence in the system and reduces the expectation of error.
- Appeals and dispute transformation mechanisms: Implement robust appeals and dispute transformation mechanisms to address concerns and errors. Provide avenues for participants to appeal decisions, present additional evidence, or seek clarification. A fair and impartial review process helps rectify errors and ensures accountability.
- Feedback loops and evaluation: Foster a culture of continuous feedback and evaluation. Regularly seek feedback from participants and stakeholders on the decision-making processes. Incorporate their insights to identify potential areas for improvement and enhance the accuracy and fairness of decision-making.
- Documentation and record-keeping: Maintain comprehensive documentation and records of the decision-making process. This includes keeping clear records of evaluations, assessments, and the rationale behind decisions. Documentation serves as a reference point, aids in error identification, and allows for retrospective analysis and learning.
- Training and education: Provide training and educational resources to participants to enhance their understanding of evaluation processes, criteria, and the principles behind decision-making. This empowers participants to navigate the system effectively and reduces the likelihood of errors stemming from misunderstandings or lack of knowledge.
Mitigating the economy of scarcity with indivisible goods:
- Resource allocation mechanisms: Develop resource allocation mechanisms that address the challenge of indivisible goods. This can involve breaking down large resources into smaller units or introducing mechanisms for sharing and collaboration. For example, if funding is the indivisible good, consider exploring methods such as fractional funding or pooling resources for joint initiatives.
- Prioritization and diversification: Prioritize projects that maximize the impact and value of limited resources. Establish clear criteria for prioritization that consider factors such as feasibility, potential for scalability, and alignment with the goals of Project Catalyst. Additionally, diversify the allocation of resources across different types of projects and domains to ensure a balanced distribution.
- Iterative funding cycles: Implement iterative funding cycles that allow for continuous evaluation, learning, and redistribution of resources. This approach enables adjustments based on the outcomes and progress of ongoing projects, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and effectively.
- Collaboration and resource sharing: Encourage collaboration and resource sharing among project teams. Facilitate opportunities for projects to leverage each other's resources, expertise, and networks. This can help mitigate the limitations imposed by indivisible goods by promoting synergy and collective progress.
Mitigating endogenous resources hazards:
- Community contribution and engagement: Foster a sense of community contribution and engagement within Project Catalyst. Encourage participants to actively contribute their skills, expertise, and resources to the ecosystem. This can include knowledge sharing, mentorship, or volunteering to support projects beyond financial contributions.
- Network building and partnerships: Facilitate the formation of networks and partnerships between participants, organizations, and stakeholders. By leveraging external resources, expertise, and networks, Project Catalyst can tap into a broader range of endogenous resources. This can include forming collaborations with academic institutions, industry partners, or other relevant organizations.
- Education and skill development: Promote education and skill development initiatives within the Project Catalyst community. Encourage participants to enhance their capabilities, acquire new skills, and expand their resource base. This empowers individuals to contribute their endogenous resources more effectively and creates a culture of continuous learning.
- Recognition and incentives: Recognize and incentivize contributions of endogenous resources. This can include acknowledgments, awards, or incentive structures that reward participants for their non-monetary contributions. By valuing and incentivizing endogenous resources, Project Catalyst can foster a culture of active participation and resource mobilization.
- Long-term sustainability planning: Develop long-term sustainability plans for Project Catalyst. This involves exploring diverse funding sources, partnerships, and revenue models that can support the continued availability of resources. By ensuring sustainability, Project Catalyst can mitigate the risk of over-reliance on limited endogenous resources.
Certainly! Let's discuss mitigation strategies for the remaining two functional hazards: no full disclosure and self-determination.
Mitigating no full disclosure hazards:
- Transparency and communication: Foster a culture of transparency and open (ideally nonviolent) communication within Project Catalyst. Provide regular updates, reports, and disclosures about the decision-making processes, allocation of resources, and overall project progress. This transparency builds trust and confidence among participants, reducing concerns related to no full disclosure.
- Clear guidelines and policies: Establish clear guidelines and policies regarding disclosure requirements within Project Catalyst. Clearly define what information should be disclosed, when, and to whom. Ensure that all participants are aware of these requirements and understand the importance of full disclosure for maintaining transparency and fairness.
- Independent audits and reviews: Implement mechanisms for independent audits and reviews of the decision-making processes and resource allocation. This can involve engaging external entities or experts to conduct periodic assessments. Independent audits help ensure that the system operates with integrity and that there is accountability in disclosing relevant information.
- Whistleblower protections: Create a safe and confidential mechanism for whistleblowers to report any instances of non-disclosure or unethical behavior. Establish protections to safeguard individuals who come forward with valuable information that can help uncover any potential issues. Whistleblower protections encourage transparency and accountability within the system.
Mitigating self-determination hazards:
- Decentralized governance mechanisms: Emphasize and strengthen the decentralized governance mechanisms within Project Catalyst. Ensure that decision-making processes involve active participation and representation from diverse stakeholders. This allows for a collective sense of ownership and empowers participants to exercise self-determination in shaping the direction of the ecosystem.
The current iteration of the dRep model is almost antithetical to this notion, by creating a power elite that pushed self determination to the edges instead to the centre.
- Voting mechanisms: Implement robust and inclusive voting mechanisms that allow participants to have a say in key decisions. Ensure that the voting process is transparent, accessible, and secure. By enabling participants to vote on proposals, funding allocation, or policy changes, Project Catalyst promotes self-determination and collective decision-making.
- Feedback mechanisms: Establish channels for participants to provide feedback and suggestions regarding the governance and operation of Project Catalyst. Actively seek input and listen to the voices of the community. Incorporate this feedback into decision-making processes to ensure that the system aligns with the needs and aspirations of the participants.
- Education and awareness: Educate participants about the principles of self-determination and the importance of their active involvement in shaping the ecosystem. Provide resources, training, and educational materials to empower participants to understand and exercise their rights within Project Catalyst. Promote a culture of informed decision-making and self-governance.
- Continuous improvement: Continuously evaluate and refine the governance mechanisms and structures within Project Catalyst. Actively seek ways to enhance self-determination by incorporating best practices, learning from experiences, and adapting to the evolving needs of the community. Regularly solicit feedback to identify areas of improvement and make adjustments accordingly.
Positive Impact of Mitigation Tactics
By implementing these mitigation strategies, Project Catalyst can address the hazards of no full disclosure and promote self-determination within the ecosystem. As well as challenges associated with the economy of scarcity and indivisible goods. These strategies promote collaboration, efficiency in resource allocation, and the sustainability of the ecosystem. They can minimize the risks associated with partiality and uncertainty of knowledge, as well as the expectation of error. Additionally, properly planned they promote fairness, objectivity, and continuous improvement, fostering a more robust and reliable decision-making process.
WOULD IT MAKE SENSE FOR THE LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT CATALYST, TO FORM WORKING GROUPS AROUND THE HAZARDS OR THEIR MITIGATION STRATEGIES?
It is important to adapt each strategy to the specific context of Project Catalyst (or any given web3 community) and continuously assess their effectiveness. Moreover, considering the input and feedback of the participating community can contribute to the ongoing improvement and refinement of the mitigation strategies.
ALL THIS IS PROBABLY NOT NEWS TO IOG RESEARCHERS, however THE REST OF THE MULTI AGENT SYSTEM MIGHT NOT BE AWARE YET.
Hazard at Work
Now it’s time to look at how a specific non functional hazard, “Expectation of Error”, within Project Catalyst can be mitigated.
The event in which the hazard was expressed, is the gas lighting incident in meeting #2 on 24th March 2022 [LINK].
Where a person is removed from a group without the group identifying reasons for the persons’ behaviour and without the possibility of making amends.
The following mitigation strategies can be considered:
1. Transparent guidelines and communication: Establish clear guidelines and expectations for behaviour within the group or community. Clearly communicate these guidelines to all participants, ensuring that everyone understands the standards of conduct expected from them. This transparency helps manage expectations and reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings or sudden removal without proper explanation.
2. Fair and accountable decision-making process: Implement a fair and accountable decision-making process when it comes to addressing behavioural issues within the group. This could involve having a system in place where concerns are raised, investigated, and addressed in a transparent manner. Allowing the person in question to provide their perspective and explain themselves and the needs that have not been met, can help prevent hasty judgements or decisions.
3. Restorative justice approach: Consider adopting a restorative justice approach, if applicable and appropriate to the situation. This approach focuses on repairing harm and promoting healing rather than punitive measures. It may involve providing opportunities for the person to understand the impact of their actions, make amends, and reintegrate into the group if they show genuine willingness to change and grow.
4. Mediation and conflict transformation: Facilitate mediation or conflict transformation processes when conflicts arise within the group. A neutral third party or mediator can help facilitate open dialogue, promote understanding, and work towards transformation or reconciliation. This allows all parties involved to express their concerns, feelings, connected needs, and perspectives, fostering a more inclusive and collaborative environment.
5. Continuous improvement and feedback loops: Establish mechanisms for continuous improvement and feedback within the group or community. This could involve regular evaluations, surveys, or feedback sessions, even parties or metaspace festivals, where participants can share their experiences, suggest improvements, and voice concerns. Actively incorporating participant feedback and addressing issues can help foster an environment of learning, growth, and accountability.
Hopefully knowing and engaging with these hazards will help in creating healthy web 3 communities in the future.
Thank you for reading volume III.
Click here in case you missed volume I or volume II.
The last volume is something short and entertaining, as a reward for making it this far and will follow shortly.