@Alanna I think it's enough if it's enough for each person involved. Is that too circular/meta?

@Alanna : "Should we be approaching starting these wallets much more lightly than starting a co-op or governing a company? Or are we actually setting up long-term mutual commitments here."

Yes. This has been the tendency so far.

At the beginning of this mmt experiment I said to everyone that I could commit to funding it for 6 months, review at 6 months if we want to keep going for another six months (12 months). We're about 3-4 months into that. I personally think running the project for 12 months is an interesting prospect.

At a meta-level this is a totally new approach for me, and I suspect for all of you as well. A patron (me) has offered funding for a time-period based around a group of people and a domain (cryptocurrency / financial literacy). How this is going to work out is still unfolding.

What does it mean to be 'in' this group. At first it was simply by my invitation. Incrementally I have been dissolving my central role. The group is moving towards managing all the available funds. It seems logical that for any new people to be invited into the group also be controlled by the group.

One of the main risks that I can see is that of "opportunity-cost". By using our time on this project/experiment we are closing down the opportunity to work on other projects. In the worst case scenario this mmt iteration will run out of funding without a clear notion of a useful product or process to rally around. I guess one of the clarifying questions for deciding to invest our time in this is that if the worst case scenario is an acceptable outcome...