Web3 Galaxy Brain 🌌🧠

Nicholas: Welcome to Web3 Galaxy Brain. My name is Nicholas. Each week I sit down with some of the brightest people building Web3 to talk about what they're working on right now. My guests today are John C. Palmer, Steve Klebanoff, and Danny Aranda, founding members of PartyDAO, creators of the Party Protocol. Party is a DAP for on-chain group coordination. With Party, a small group of friends or a large group of strangers can come together to raise funds and buy an NFT, trade tokens, or complete any other on-chain activity together. Party is a group wallet with on-chain governance, designed to allow parties of people to move quickly and get things done on-chain. On this episode, John, Danny, and Steve explain how they've expanded Party's purview from the original PartyBid group NFT purchasing experience to the Party Protocol, which is more flexible. The new Party allows people to crowdfund ETH without a predefined acquisition target or sell Party memberships as timed and limited editions. Operators, a new feature launched just one day before this recording, solves a sticky problem familiar to multisig signers and on-chain DAO members alike. When coordinating to execute time-sensitive on-chain transactions, like a DEX token swap, safe multisigs and governor DAOs often have difficulty, as the swap orders they collectively approve, expire, and would revert by the time constituents have signed the transaction or voted on the proposal. Party operators allow Party members to vote on an intent which describes parameters like the tokens to be swapped and an acceptable exchange rate, as well as to delegate execution of the swap to the most qualified Party member. Operators separate voting on transaction intents from their execution, solving the delays that plague existing on-chain coordination schemes. Towards the end of the call, we talk about the brand vision, values, and aesthetic choices that the team has made, which represent a unique perspective amongst their peers. It's always a great time getting together with the Party DAO crew to discuss their perspective and approach to building tasteful crypto products. I hope you enjoy the show. As always, the show is provided as entertainment and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice, or any form of endorsement or suggestion. Crypto has risks, and you alone are responsible for doing your research and making your own decisions. Welcome, John, Danny, Steve from Party. How's it going?

Danny Aranda: We're doing well.

John C. Palmer: Thanks for having us.

Nicholas: Of course, it's a pleasure to have you. I mean, you're not commonly on a lot of podcasts. Am I mistaken in that impression?

John C. Palmer: Yeah, I think that's probably pretty accurate, I guess, maybe compared to, I don't know what you might expect. But Danny and I were on the Pattern Recognition podcast recently, which much to our surprise was like maybe the most minted episode, which we're still trying to figure out why. But yeah, this is a more frequent podcast. We're still trying to figure out why.

Steve Klebanoff: Podcast NFTs.

Danny Aranda: I'm not sure who's...

Nicholas: Yeah, I've been thinking about that. I mean, honestly, in the No Pattern show, I haven't listened to your episode yet, but I heard good things. But I love that their artwork is unique for each one, which really justifies the minting of each episode. I've thought about doing it for this show, but just doing the show mostly solo, I don't yet have a mechanism for generating decent art to justify the episode every time. But people are claiming that you might listen to it inside of Interface or some other app that surfaces the mints as a podcast player. But part of me finds that a little hard to believe, but maybe people switch over to a regular podcast app.

Danny Aranda: We're not on a lot of podcasts NFTs because they all can't be Web3 Galaxy brand.

Nicholas: It's true. You've all been on before. We had a... I don't think it was officially a party episode, but like a year and a half ago, something like that. That was a great episode. I remember John was on a run.

John C. Palmer: Yeah. Actually, it's funny because I just laced up my running shoes. I'm going to be going on a run after this.

Nicholas: Awesome.

John C. Palmer: But don't worry, I won't be running on the pod here.

Nicholas: Okay, I have so many questions, but we're familiar, but maybe people listening aren't. So could each of you just, especially because there's all three voices in the recording, it's sometimes hard to figure out. So could you just say your name, what you do at PartyDao, and maybe what kind of thing you got up to before you were at PartyDao?

Danny Aranda: John, you want to start?

Nicholas: Yeah, go for it.

John C. Palmer: Sure, I'll start. So yeah, my name is John, John Palmer. I'm a co-founder of PartyDao, been involved working with both Danny and Steve from the very earliest days. At PartyDao, my title is project lead in practice. What that means is I'm leading the team and mainly I spend my time working on a combination of high level product stuff down to in the weeds Figma designs, working with protocol engineers on protocol architecture and feature specing, and then work a lot with Danny across a bunch of other efforts related to brand marketing, go to market. So it's a pretty broad spectrum there, I'd say, but try to specialize mainly in product. And before PartyDao, I've done a few different roles, but all in tech and startups. Started out as a software engineer at Snapchat, then was a product designer, both freelance and at a couple startups and actually previously founded a crypto startup back in 2017. that lasted for almost two years, didn't really get off the ground, but actually got a ton of reps in there building product and designing stuff from scratch, even though it didn't get too far in terms of traction. So mainly a bunch of stuff, product engineering, design, all in startups and crypto.

Nicholas: Danny, you want to go next?

Danny Aranda: Sure. I'm Danny Aranda. Focus both on products, but also go to market at PartyDao. So everything we do that's market facing in terms of how we articulate the product, how we create activations to engage people in it, and working with different folks to make sure that we're getting traction. Prior to PartyDao, I've actually been in crypto for 10 years for my sins. I worked at a company called Ripple. I wasn't an early employee there.

Nicholas: Recently vindicated, right?

Danny Aranda: Recently, yeah, recently vindicated. And I would say some of my own journey very quickly has been from my earlier experience in crypto, I was much more focused on the protocol side or developer infrastructure side. And that was shaping a lot of my thinking in crypto. And I would have said before getting involved with PartyDao that I thought, or my thesis on crypto was that developer infrastructure and new L2s and so on is what needs to improve in order to take things mainstream. I think after working on PartyDao, my mindset really, really shifted. And I'm pretty convinced at this point that the most important thing to work on is actually onboarding end users with real products that create real engagement. And that's what will onboard a lot of people. And that's part of what drives my interest and passion around the products that we create at PartyDao.

Nicholas: Awesome. I'm sure we'll talk more about what that means. Steve, you're up.

Steve Klebanoff: Yeah. I'm Steve Klebanoff. I'm a tech lead at PartyDao. I work across the stack, do a lot of full stack stuff and also help out with a bit of the Solidity architecture as well. Been working on PartyDao since the beginning. Prior to PartyDao, been a professional software engineer for like 13 years or so. Got my start working full time in crypto in 2018, working at ZeroX, focused largely on architecting their request for quote system. And after ZeroX, I was a collaborator on two generative art NFT projects, did some bespoke Web3 projects. Also along with my wife, Bree, got into angel investing, DeFi yield farming, and was early into NFTs and in particular generative art NFTs.

Nicholas: Great. And we did an episode, right? Actually, I think it was a Solidity Galaxy Brain, where Steve and I go deep on a bunch of contracts that you've written previously. So if people are interested, you can check that out. Okay, so PartyDao and Party protocol. A lot of the marketing material I see presents Party as multiplayer. The word multiplayer comes up a lot. Given that blockchains are already kind of multiplayer, is Party like that mode in Goldeneye on N64, where two people control like two controllers control one avatar? Or what does it mean to be multiplayer in a context where multiplayer is kind of the status quo? Maybe John, you could take it.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, yeah, I'm happy. I'm happy to speak to that one. So to be clear, definitely not prepared to defend multiplayer on a linguistic basis. Someone critiquing what the whole spectrum of things is. Multiplayer is definitely, to some degree, marketing. speak for us, which I think is another way for us talking about group coordination. So if you want to know what's under the charismatic framing of multiplayer stuff, we think about group coordination. But just to talk about a little bit, I think there's maybe two axes for what coordination looks like in crypto. One is maybe like on-chain coordination or economic coordination. The other would be social coordination or off-chain coordination. And I think, yeah, to your point, kind of like anything on the internet's multiplayer. Like, you know, like I'm on the internet, there's a bunch of other people also on the internet, therefore it's multiplayer. But I think just like the presence of multiple actors or multiple people as a definition for like a word as specific as multiplayer is maybe not that useful. So I tried to break this down a little bit in a diagram I recently made called the multiplayer crypto alignment chart. And it lays out these two axes. So you've got off-chain coordination or social coordination, on-chain coordination, economic coordination. I think so far, crypto has done a really good job at a lot of the on-chain or like economic coordination. Like we've got pretty sophisticated DEXs, lending markets, DeFi protocols. Like all of these things are technically multiplayer too, right? Like when I interact with a Uniswap pool, there's other people interacting with it. So it's multiplayer. But I think just to give you kind of like the, if you were doing like the two by two, where we kind of focus on when we're talking about this stuff is when both economic coordination and social coordination are pretty aligned. So you could think of not only are we aligned economically in a group, like we hold the same token or NFT or something like that, but we're also aligned socially in a group with people who share the same goals and maybe share social trust to some degree. And I think crypto has a ton of potential to unlock new behaviors around this type of stuff. But I think for a lot of reasons, a lot of the pure kind of market-based coordination has been what's been mainly developed over crypto's history so far.

Nicholas: So would you see that social coordination, like how does that relate to the word DAO or the acronym DAO for you? Or is a DAO, would a DAO fall into that quadrant that's least addressed or least well addressed so far?

John C. Palmer: Yeah, right. So I think, so in this diagram I made, the on-chain coordination axis has like three categories. You could break it down even further, like it's all spectrum, whatever. But in the lowest amount of on-chain coordination would be there is none. It's just. there's no on-chain link between people at all. In the middle is people are linked on-chain simply via holding the same token or asset. So like maybe they both want the price to go up, but that's as far as their on-chain coordination extends. And then at the very top, like the most on-chain aligned or like constrained you could be is that you're actually not only holding the same assets, but your behavior is constrained by smart contracts. So that would be that top, you know, whatever quadrant is, is basically what would typically be described by a DAO. DAOs typically have like on-chain governance and rules for coordination. But then you have to look at that through the lens of social coordination as well. So social coordination would say at the lowest amount is like users are actually enemies. In the middle is like the users are maybe part of the same network, but not, they don't really know each other. There's only kind of like a loose social connection there. And then the most aligned would be like the users have the same goals. They know each other, they trust each other. So I would actually say like DAOs could be at three different points on that spectrum, right? On the most PVP version of a DAO would be DAO hard forks, right? So like something like NounsDAO today, which is, NounsDAO is not all PVP, but it seems like, you know, there's some contingent of NounsDAO members who really want to fork and take some portion of the treasury. So that's kind of being developed right now. In the middle, which is neither like antagonistic nor particularly synergetic would be something like quote unquote being airdropped responsibility by like ENSDAO. This is like a DAO of people whose only tie is that they use the same product. So it's kind of neither here nor there. It's just kind of whatever, like we're in a DAO, but don't really feel particularly motivated to do anything. And then the most aligned you could be is maybe, you know, you could point to any like really successful DAO, I would say any really successful party where the people like just know each other and have the same goals. So I don't think you can tell just by looking at the on-chain setup of a group, or just by looking at the social setup of a group, everything about that group, you kind of have to like, look at both the social realities and the on-chain realities to kind of get a better picture of what's going on.

Nicholas: Got it. Did either. if you want to jump in, feel free, by the way, Steve, or when you say social, it reminds me of sort of what Zora has been doing with conquering mindshare across the broader ecosystem. But when you say social, you're speaking more about how closely aligned the members of the organization are, am I understanding correctly?

John C. Palmer: Yeah, at least in the framework I'm talking about, when I say like social coordination, it's like almost like social alignment. How like on the same team are the people here?

Nicholas: Yeah, it's interesting that too, because social coordination, I guess, in a way, I don't know the incentives around decentralized Ethereum, it's also social coordination, but it's not strictly aligned social coordination, it's game theoretically optimal, in order to achieve the stated design goal, but not that the people are actually have the same interest necessarily, they don't have to. So how does Party relate to all this? Party is like about bringing people together who really have the same kind of intentions, or at least are willing to delegate them to somebody and just trust in them? Or how does Party manifest this?

John C. Palmer: Yeah, sure. So again, I don't want to be all the share voice, but maybe just to wrap up the thread here. I think, when I first got into Ethereum, which was around 2016, the really cool thing about like smart contracts and Solidity was like, they were literally called smart contracts, compared to like legal contracts. And it seemed to be about the idea that you could like program and automate the rules for two people interacting who like knew each other and had the same goal and wanted to like kind of maybe like multiply their ability to be efficient or coordinate and like kind of automate the boring stuff to the background so that they could do more stuff together. I think how things have really played out in crypto so far is like most of the waves we've seen and a lot of the work in Solidity that's happened have been around like new types of assets you create with Solidity, NFTs, ERC20 tokens, new type of markets you can create with Solidity, NFT marketplaces like Seaport, DEXs like Uniswap. We've obviously seen DAOs as well. There's stuff like Governor Bravo and Moloch DAOs. But it seems to me that like the tools for using Solidity and smart contracts to help groups of people who share the same goal, just be more effective and achieve those goals more efficiently or in different creative ways is kind of underdeveloped compared to where I was most inspired by it. So that's what we focus on with Party, right? So the Party protocol is a protocol for on-chain group coordination. And it's trying to build a complete tool set of all the things you might want as a group with a goal to set up a group on-chain and help use this technology of Ethereum to make your group more effective at what it's trying to do. So yeah, we really try to focus on that. I guess in my diagram, like top left quadrant, which is you've got a group of people who are strongly socially aligned, and now they have tools to become strongly aligned on-chain as well.

Nicholas: Danny, did you want to jump in?

Danny Aranda: One, I mean, I think what you're referring to earlier, Nicholas, around just Ethereum itself as kind of like a, has a multiplayer structure to it between say like miners or sequencers and validators. There's, you know, one other way to look at this is just like from the view of like a vertical,

John C. Palmer: like

Danny Aranda: tech stack, like you have like an infrastructure layer in crypto, which is a bunch of miners, sequencers, validators

John C. Palmer: who

Danny Aranda: are engaged in some type of like multiplayer context because they're using the same protocol that is in concert, like creating a network between them. On top of that, you have assets that are created, and so you have markets, and you can consider markets multiplayer, can be adversarial, can be aligned, but that's sort of like sits on top. I would say there's a third layer that is less developed, which is more of the application layer, like an end user layer, and that's where you see the social coordination piece.

John C. Palmer: And I

Danny Aranda: would say like, you know, in terms of like the history of the internet, like this is very simplistic or reductive, but you had like a similar type of theme play out where you had, you know, like Cisco and networking companies were like a hot thing for a few decades. You know, getting to the application layer, though, like that's what eventually like drove like all distribution. A lot of value accrued there. I think people sometimes think of like end users interfacing with like front ends that maybe don't deliver a lot of value, but I think we're seeing something like pretty different emerge in terms of like the type of value

John C. Palmer: that

Danny Aranda: things like OpenSea, you know, on top of Seaport can deliver and so on. So I think this is going to be like one of the more interesting areas that's been beginning to develop this kind of like more application, social layer to crypto that we're only just seeing emerging.

Nicholas: Yeah, my question is a little bit trite, listening to you talk about it, because of course, like the economy is also already multiplayer. And yet it still is beneficial to create small parties that, you know, have their own internal multiplayer dynamics, but have output or interact with the rest of the network as a unified as a company, as a DAO, as a what have you. So so obviously, there is there is justification for having multiplayer on top of multiplayer, or maybe maybe even the term multiplayer when really pushed is is not 100% accurate for what each of those parts is. But it does make sense that you would want to coordinate on top of a system in which you can already interact with with others. Party went through, I think, three iteration big iterations, like there's the original MVP, then there was really the V1. And now we're on V2. Maybe can you take me through whoever would like to what the learned in party V1, what was working in party V1, and how you chose to expand that in V2 and how it affected its design.

Danny Aranda: Steve, you want to take us through the history?

Steve Klebanoff: I think John is probably the best suited to roll through that. And then I'd be happy to like add some more technical details on top of it after that.

Nicholas: You could like ad lib as he's talking. You could like, yeah.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, great. Feel free to feel free to cut me off. I'm happy to do that. Yeah, just I won't take too long on this. But yeah, so party bid started with our V1. And it was called party bid. And it was party bid for a reason that did one thing, it was a group of people combine their money in a smart contract to bid in an auction. And if they won the auction, the NFT was fractionalized, and everybody got their own share of fractions. And I think the big, this was like the first release and the big inspiring moment from it was realizing what happened when you took something that was typically to keep using this language, played in single player, and you turn it into something multiplayer, right? So it was just one thing, getting in an auction. It was a very popular thing in spring 2021, and summer 2021. But you could only bid as a, you know, your own EOA. And then for the first time, you let people kind of participate in this verb as a group. And that actually made it, you know, we thought maybe, oh, just make it cheaper financially. But actually, the whole experience changed, like, it became more fun, people were chatting, it developed all this extra meaning and context from doing something, you know, quote, unquote, in multiplayer. So the inspiring kind of vision from that point was, okay, we just did this for one verb in Ethereum. But what if you could do everything in Ethereum in multiplayer in this way? So that's, by the way, like why we chose that word. It wasn't coming at it from like, too pure of an intellectual or academic standpoint. It was just like, that's what it felt like. So it's V1. The problem with V1 was that you buy an NFT, you fractionalize it, and it kind of makes sense. At the time, NFTs were still really skeuomorphic, kind of to rare one of one art pieces, you know, you had stuff like the Beeple $80 million, you know, whatever, like Nyan Cat meme selling for 600k on Foundation. This was like what was happening at the time. So just fractionalizing it made kind of sense, like, I'm getting my shares of this thing or whatever. But pretty quickly, and I think we kind of anticipated this as well, NFTs have evolved a lot, not just to one of ones, but then you had 10k PFP projects, generative art. And then you also started adding, you know, quote unquote, utility. So by owning this NFT, the only functions I can call are not like transfer and transfer from, it's actually I can call other functions, I can vote in a DAO, I can claim an airdrop, I can do whatever. And the big problem with V1 is you couldn't do any of that stuff because you just had these fractions, right? And Kia Kreutler from Gnosis has a really interesting mental model that I kind of latch on to back then, which was that there's a big difference between fractionalization and holding in common. Her phrase is holding in common, but fractionalization is just, hey, everybody get your piece of the thing, and you can do whatever you want with it. But it's kind of like every man for himself.

Nicholas: And what you hold is a piece.

John C. Palmer: Versus holding in common, what you hold is a piece, right? Versus like, hey, we just bought this thing, we own the whole thing. Let's decide together what we want to do with it. So we knew we needed to let people do stuff with the NFTs. So that was basically V2. So over the course of 2022, we built the party protocol. And this was V1 of the party protocol, V2 of our product. But you know, while it may have looked just like another platform for buying NFTs and, you know, buying them as a group, it was actually a full on on-chain coordination protocol. So the party protocol had not only the crowdfunding, which lets you buy NFTs as a group, but after that, instead of fractionalizing the item in V2, you would actually put the item into a smart contract. Everyone would have an NFT membership with voting power, and the group could do stuff with the NFT. You could even like wallet connect into apps as the party and call functions by just clicking buttons in the app and voting on things to do. This was kind of unlocking the full life cycle of a group buying an NFT. So not just buying it, but buying, using and selling. And then finally, I'd say like right now we're on the third iteration of the product. You could call it V3, but we recently launched Party. So we basically dropped the bid and launched party.app two months ago, which is basically a full on, if I'm using non-marketing speak, it's basically a full group Ethereum account with governance and ownership and everything built in. We call it multiplayer for Ethereum because now parties are not limited to just doing NFT purchases and using their NFTs, but parties can just straight up raise ETH in a number of different ways and then do anything with it on Ethereum.

Nicholas: So

Steve Klebanoff: just to add a little bit to that approach that we took as well, I think it's been an interesting approach from a product and engineering perspective to focus on, we did really well with the crowdfunding and the purchasing in the V1, and then we just deferred to another protocol for the quote unquote fractionalization or group ownership afterwards. And then we recognized that we wanted to bring in that kind of holding in common mechanism like in-house to our own bespoke protocol and add some really special superpowers there that John was speaking to in terms of all the functionality. But we did that while we released the party protocol. But the first time we released the party protocol, it was still the surface area was still just for managing NFTs together, even though it had all of these really awesome kind of features underneath the hood that could be applied to any asset. We took kind of the approach of still focusing on the group NFT purchasing as the entry point. So it would be really clear why you would use this product. And there was a very specific use case that you could point people to of what it could achieve compared to something like starting a multi-sig or even like a juice box or something like that, or a syndicate where there's like a million different things you could do with it. So I think we benefited from introducing the protocol governance with superpowers, but while still kind of holding on to the group NFT purchasing idea just as an easy consumer entry point to that protocol. And now with the kind of rebrand to party, as well as opening it up for people to raise ETH and govern any assets. Now we finally kind of get to take the safety rails off and really show the full power of the protocol and all the diverse use cases after we got to kind of like test it a bit with that one specific use case, which I think was a pretty interesting way to go about it from both the product side as well as the engineering side.

Nicholas: I want to talk more about what the flow is like through an experience on Party, but before just talking of the change between the V2 Party protocol and what it is today, allowing for different kinds of crowd funds that are not directly focused on an NFT. Is that an additive only delta from what you might call V2 and V3? Or is V3 where other core contracts reworked and was the protocol entirely redeployed in order to enable these more generic crowd fund parties?

Steve Klebanoff: Yes. So the Party protocol is like separated into a few different pieces. And we have a concept of crowd funds, which has to do like how the group forms. And previously with like the first introduction of the Party protocol that was tightly linked to NFT parties, there were only kind of NFT based crowd funds. So you would raise ETH and then you would purchase NFT and then the or a group of NFTs. If you were sweeping the floor, you would transfer them into the Party protocol and then it would mint membership cards. So when we introduced ETH parties, there were some kind of core changes done to the main core protocol. But I think the biggest change was just introducing a new type of crowd fund, a contract that wasn't just linked to an NFT purchase. It was just allowed people to raise ETH and then transfer the ETH into the Party protocol afterwards. So definitely some changes at the core level. But the biggest change was just the introduction of this new type of crowd fund contract that interacts with the core Party protocol.

Nicholas: OK, so let's we'll jump into contracts in a second, because I do want to give people a sense of what the architecture is like and how the pieces fit together. But maybe just still to set the groundwork a little bit, like what can I do with a party? We talked about crowd funds and I was looking at the docs. There's like crowd funds that are essentially in that phase where you're raising the ETH. There are different sort of different versions of the crowd funding contract that can be focused on things like an NFT auction, buying a specific NFT or buying any NFT from a specific collection. Or there's also an auction variant that's fit for the nounish style auctions where you maybe want to conserve your ETH. Or if you fail to win in today's auction, maybe you want to try again tomorrow. So there's a specific kind of crowd fund for that, as well as collection sweeping. And now this new ETH crowd fund variant where there's no NFT or collection bid object. Those all fall under this umbrella of crowd funding. Is that still core to the protocol, the idea that you start with a crowd fund?

John C. Palmer: Yeah. So this is evolving over time. But yeah, typically when you start a party, you select a way to begin and you choose from a few crowd fund methods. You just listed out a bunch of like technical implementations that are all different. I think the way that's presented to a user in our product is a little bit simpler than that. So if you choose, hey, I want to start a party and our goal is simply to purchase an NFT or do like a floor sweep of NFTs or whatever, our product will make sure that you get the right smart contract under the hood to do that. But that's just thought of as like starting with an NFT purchase. There's also two other ways you can start a party that are more kind of open ended. So maybe your party, you know, again, in the new product, this is kind of the big new ability is you don't just want to do an NFT purchase. Maybe you're starting something like a group wallet. It's going to be around, you know, trading stuff for the next many years. Or maybe you're starting a DAO or a grants program. Maybe you're funding something to happen. So you really just want money in the party. You want ETH. There's two different ways to do that today. One is called a flexible crowdfund. So it's kind of exactly what you'd expect. It's kind of like a Kickstarter, right? You set a goal for the crowdfund. Let's say you say five ETH. People can contribute any amount of ETH they want. And in exchange, they get a membership with a proportional amount of voting power to their contribution. So if you put in 0.1 ETH and I put in one ETH, I'm going to have 10 times as much voting power as you. And the goal is basically to reach the crowdfunding goal. If the party reaches the crowdfunding goal, then it kind of like turns on voting and you can actually start using the ETH to do stuff in Ethereum together. The other way you can start a party that's actually kind of similar, you're also just raising ETH, is you can do a membership mint. So this is thinking about the party a little bit differently. You decide a number of members you want in your party, a number of memberships that are going to be available. So you could say, hey, I want to start a party that has 100 membership NFTs. And you choose a price per membership. And then you basically begin the mint and people can mint a membership if they want to join. The difference here is that instead of the memberships all being different amounts of voting power, it's more similar to, you know, whatever, like Nounish governance or where you have one membership equals one vote. You can also do this in an open edition way. So you could say, actually, I don't even care about a cap supply. I'm going to do a seven day membership mint for 0.01 ETH per member. And I'll just see how many people want to join. So these are both new ways to start a party that you can do in party.app. And basically, when you finish either one, what you end up with is a group of people with ETH and the ability to start doing anything you want on Ethereum together as a group.

Steve Klebanoff: Very cool. I think that's also a really good, like, technical explanation of, like, the different ways in which crowdfunding can occur, like at the contract level. But I think it's also interesting to think about the actual real use cases that we've seen occur on party.app for like a variety of different use cases. Danny, would you be open to going through, like, some use cases that we've seen so far that are particularly interesting?

Danny Aranda: Yeah, I mean, just to take a step back in terms of thinking about the product, I would think about it in, like, three basic pieces. Like, first is how does a group form? And a crowdfund is one way to do that. Crowdfunds are nice because they're opt-in and the group can kind of, like, form pretty naturally. The second piece is how does a group make decisions? And that's like, you know, on-chain voting, proposals, delegation, all those things. But like, how does the group actually, like, coordinate? And the third piece is, like, how can a group actually, like, go and take actions and actually execute things? And we released a new product yesterday that kind of, like, speaks to that as well in terms of, like, doing, like, sweeps and swaps and kind of interesting transactions we can do on Ethereum. So those are kind of, like, three core components to think about to the product. It's like, how does a group form? How does a group make decisions? And how does the group actually, like, execute transactions? In terms of the use cases, like, broadly, I would think about them in maybe, like, three forms. One would be just, like, a group wallet. You've got a group chat with your friends and you've now got this, like, group wallet for them. So it's maybe a smaller group in terms of scale. There's maybe more trust between their participants. There's all kind of, like, unique attributes to that. But, you know, here's a product where they can, like, quickly come together, you know, pull some funds, go, essentially just go have fun Ethereum together. A second form of group is one that has, like, a very defined objective, like something like an actual transaction they want to do. And this is where party bids started. It's like, let's go buy an NFT. That is, like, a transaction you can construct with Ethereum. that's, like, very, very defined. And they can go do that. I would say an analogy to that would be, like, let's go buy the Constitution, right? It's like, it is a clear, defined thing that people are going to rally around. And it's like, it's almost like this raid that goes and accomplishes that objective. And then a third use case to think about would be more of just, like, an Internet native organization that maybe has, like, a broader vision or goal in mind. And they are coordinating around that to make it happen. And that could actually, you know, not just be one transaction, but multiple. That could, like, go on for a long time. And so you can think about traditional DAOs within that context or things like NounsDAO and so on. So that's one taxonomy we have for, one, thinking about the product, but two, thinking about the way the market actually uses that.

Nicholas: Got it. OK, so so often starting with a crowdfund, either with a specific object in mind or we're just going to be a party together and do stuff. Maybe we're friends or maybe we have some strategic goal or alignment that we'd like to explore through a collective wallet. We pitch in, we hit our goal or maybe the goal is pre, you know, built into the issuance event. We succeed. What happens then? There's this transition from contributor cards to party cards. Maybe you could describe a little bit about that and we can start talking about how governance actually functions.

John C. Palmer: Yeah. So actually, that's also maybe an important, you're more familiar, I guess, with the technical details than probably most people would be. But back in party bid, when you were crowdfunding an NFT purchase, you had a different NFT during the crowdfund than once the party got started and governance began. But in the new product, that's not true. So as soon as you contribute to a party, you get your membership in the party. And once the crowdfund is done and successful, you can just start using that NFT membership to vote on things. So that is actually kind of like a nice, it's a nice reduction of friction and a better UX for people. And there's some technical reasons why that is different for NFT purchases versus these new kind of crowdfunds like membershipments and the flexible crowdfund. But yeah, that's gone now.

Nicholas: Okay, so there's no more soul bound contributor cards.

John C. Palmer: They're still there for NFT crowdfunds. And the reason for that has to do with in NFT crowdfunds, you don't actually know how much money you're going to end up spending. So you don't know how much voting power to give people. There's kind of like a first in first out accounting that has to get resolved at the end. But yeah, when you're just raising an amount of ETH, you don't...

Nicholas: Because like people might contribute in excess of what you actually spend and that amount in excess should not be credited with governance weight.

John C. Palmer: Exactly. But that doesn't happen in membershipments or flexible crowdfunds. because you know, like we're either raising 10 ETH or we're failing. So if you put in one ETH, we already know like you're going to have 10% voting power, you're not going to have any at all.

Nicholas: Interesting. And it has to do with some of the dynamics around fundraising that you wouldn't want to just split it up between everyone in the NFT races, because they might just dump a bunch of ETH in and get be able to rug the party.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, that's a whole other angle to this stuff that we could get into later, which is kind of the game theoretical attacks. But if you did it, if you were to do it that way, and not do the first in first out, you're subject to a whale attack where let's say we're buying a one ETH NFT, but there's a minute left in the crowdfund, someone could just come in with 100 ETH, have all the voting power and then rug the other users. So it's actually really important for the NFT crowdfunds that you don't do the accounting that way. But in ETH crowdfunds, we have different ways of accounting for that via... There's a role called a party host who gets some extra privileges for tax from that type.

Nicholas: Okay, so actually, this is perfect time to talk about hosts. So let's say one way or another, we transition that we succeed and we transition into the governance phase of the party, we have an actual party, we're finished with the crowdfund. What happens? I have, everybody has a party card, right? And it represents the voting weight in the party. But there's also this notion of a host. Maybe you can explain what it feels like to be in a party on day one.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, definitely. So the host is just a role that you can assign to any number of people in the party. When you create a party, you're a host, but you can, you know, if I wanted to create a party with you, Nicholas, I could, I could enter your ENS name and make sure that you were a host as well.

Nicholas: Yeah, maybe it would be good to just establish an example for the purpose of the conversation. So let's say the four of us decide we're going to do a tennis tournament oriented party. And our goal is to create a tennis championship in some physical location in the future. So we raise a bunch of ETH, and we succeed in hitting our goal. Now we're in the party.

John C. Palmer: Cool. Yeah, so basically, let's go with that. If I were to say like, you and me were the hosts, what does that even mean that we're hosts? There's some social features in our app that are for the hosts, like hosts can send out kind of like email updates to everybody to let them know things that are changing in the party. There's some basic like, web 2, stuff like that. But on chain hosts basically have two privileges. The first is a veto privilege. So if someone's proposing an action that the host think is unsafe or undesired for the group, the host can veto the proposal. Important to distinguish from hosts who could unilaterally pass a proposal. Hosts don't have any ability to just do stuff with the party's funds, but they can veto stuff. And then finally, there is a rage quit mechanism in parties. But I think rage quit in a lot of protocols is like, there's a lot of downsides to rage quit. We consider rage quit just more of like a nice security feature for winding down a party if it ends up in a bad spot. So hosts have the ability to toggle on rage quit if they want to let people kind of disband the party. If for whatever reason, a party got attacked by someone who was trying to do stuff that the party didn't desire. If the party became inactive, this is just there as a nice backup feature. Hosts can turn on rage quit and let people leave. But actually, I think this is a... So that's the host role. To take this party, maybe we should talk about this example party. Imagine like we were doing instead of the tennis tournament, as much as my bias makes me want to run with the tennis tournament example. I think we should run with an example. use case of like, let's say the four of us were creating a party to just be our group wallet, do some DGEN NFT and ERC20 token trading or something. Because this is where I think parties, compared to basically any other group, Ethereum product on the market really shine. Because we just released a pretty exciting new feature yesterday that kind of like unbricks group products in general for Ethereum with some pretty cool protocol engineering. So we could talk about that if you want to.

Nicholas: What is it and how does it work? And we also should be approaching this question like, why not a safe? Like what is, you know, in the spectrum of EOA, multi-sig, a maybe party is somewhere in there. And then Governor Bravo, maybe even other things that I haven't listed. AA wallets also, I think we should start to clarify like why, what does make this different? And I think the governance is the answer and maybe this operator feature too.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, totally. So just speaking, let's get out of technical land for a minute and just into like. maybe what like regular consumers are thinking about. There are group solutions for Ethereum on one end of the spectrum. Maybe there's like DAOs, like just being in a DAO, there's protocols and tools for like voting and DAOs and keeping track of proposals or whatever. Then on the other end of the spectrum, maybe the lighter weight side would be a multi-sig. So kind of the basic group wallet implementation. that's out there. I think the white space in the market thus far, it's just that there's not really a group product in Ethereum that's meant for regular everyday Ethereum users to be active and go do stuff that consumers are doing. So if you think about a DAO, I mean, there's a million memes you could reference, right? But like people just complain about DAOs for being these like bureaucratic, monolithic organizations that are really frustrating to engage with. And often it's a combination of like multiple tools that you're using between a Discord server and a snapshot voting system plus some governance portal. It's really not the tool you're going to reach for as like a group of friends doing something fun on chain. Then on the other end of the spectrum, there's a multi-sig. And yeah, I'm definitely not going to like speak to downsides of a multi-sig. Because multi-sigs are actually a really great primitive. There's a lot of like really awesome things you can do with a multi-sig. But I would say for groups of people that want to go fast and do a lot of stuff and have fun on chain, there's a lot left to be desired there. So parties try to be like the consumer solution for a way to use Ethereum as a group. But I think this is a good transition point because in the shift from party bid to party, now parties can do anything on Ethereum. And I think this is kind of reductive, but if you were to try to point out the two most common actions and popular areas of product market fit for Ethereum, they're basically like ERC20 and ERC721, like swaps and sweeps. But this kind of comes to an important point of friction for all group products in the Ethereum ecosystem, which is when you go from doing something single player to multiplayer, you get this new trade-off, which is there's an inherent trade-off between building consensus, like finding agreement, voting on something, getting signatures in your multi-sig, whatever it might be, and going fast. And in practice, what this means is that basically every group product in Ethereum, doing things in the market, like buying NFTs off the floor, doing a floor sweep, or making a trade on Uniswap, swapping tokens, are honestly pretty virtually impossible. So if you've ever been in a DAO trying to do this or a multi-sig trying to do this, you basically have this classic thing where you go in Uniswap, you TF the trade, then you hit up all your multi-sig signers or you hit up your DAO, God forbid, to start signing this transaction or voting on it. And even if 30 minutes later, you're somehow able to get that, if you're lucky and you have multi-sig signers who are responsive, even 30 minutes later, that transaction will revert because the market has moved in those 30 minutes. So the problem here is literally for groups to actually use Ethereum, you have to solve this problem. So we basically, yesterday, released a new feature in Party called Operators. And Operators are a smart contract mechanism. that's basically an architecture to solve this problem. And it does that at a high level by separating the voting and consensus process from the process of actually executing a transaction. And I'll let Steve speak to the technical side of this, but at the high level, the way this works is that parties and party members can create flexible proposals for these types of actions. So instead of saying, here's the exact call data for a proposal to swap these tokens at this price with this slippage and this whatever, and we vote and it becomes invalid, I can propose to my party, hey, I want to swap ETH for USDC. I only want to spend one ETH. I'm willing to tolerate this price range. And I trust, let's say, Nicholas and Steve to execute the swap if we vote to do this. I can create that proposal and we can take our time voting on it. Because once the proposal is passed, then someone can come in and execute the proposal with the specific inputs and parameters at a time of their choosing. So I think the top level takeaway here is, I really think it's the first time in any group product in Ethereum that actually doing things like trading NFTs or tokens can actually work. People talk about doing this stuff, but if you look at the products in the market, it is virtually pretty impossible to do until now.

Nicholas: Amazing. So just to clarify for anyone listening who didn't quite catch it. So basically, if you write a proposal, you make a proposal in a party or in any multiplayer tool to do a swap or purchase an NFT, and that NFT or swap price changes sufficiently to make it an invalid proposal that will just revert if executed, it's not possible to achieve this. This operator thing is allowing you to, what did you say? It's achieve consensus separately from executing the specific transaction, consensus around some kind of parameters.

John C. Palmer: So I would describe it as decoupling consensus from execution. So yeah, the problem is, if I tee up a swap, by the time I've passed that proposal or gotten multi-sig signatures in most products, the market has moved and the swap is no longer valid. If I tee up something like a floor sweep or an NFT purchase, by the time I get the multi-sig signatures, or by the time I get the Dow vote to happen, the floor items have already been bought by somebody else. So I have to start over. Parties solve this by letting you make kind of a general range proposal, say, hey, I want to trade these tokens in this price range, or I want to buy items off the floor of this collection, but I don't know what items yet. And once the party passes the proposal, that proposal can be executed with the specific details at the time of execution. So it's not going to revert or make you go back to the drawing board in terms of setting up the proposal again.

Steve Klebanoff: And also just notably want to call out that we have these operators for not just ERC-20 swaps, but also for NFT swaps. But they both follow that same pattern of creating a proposal that defines kind of like the quote unquote intent of what you want to do, like what the bounds of it are, and who are the allowed people to actually provide the call data to execute it once it's

John C. Palmer: passed.

Steve Klebanoff: So you create the proposal, you specify the kind of intent of what you want to do, whether that's trading ETH for USDC or sweeping the Malady floor, and then you specify who are the allowed people that are allowed to provide the arbitrary call data to execute it. And then we make a really nice consumer-friendly UX in our product that once that proposal passes, it actually gives you a built-in kind of Uniswap-style swap interface for actually executing that swap if you're one of the allowed executors, or kind of like an Open C sweeping experience if you're executing the NFT swap. And the robustness as well as reliability and availability of aggregation APIs really helped us make that relatively quickly and like a pretty nice user experience using Reservoir on the NFT side and using 0xAPI on the ERC20 swap side sourcing from like all different DEX liquidity.

Nicholas: Nice. So all these infrastructure startups are actually doing something useful for DApp developers. So basically, if I understand correctly, when you make a proposal, in the base party protocol, there are some number of proposals that are available to you, but you can also create new different arbitrary proposals. You could previously make a proposal that was to execute any old call data, but in this case, you're making reference to a new contract and you're voting on whether or not we should send ETH to this contract to be swapped for USDC, for example. Is that the architecture, Steve?

Steve Klebanoff: Yeah, underneath the hood, there's a proposal type that's separate from an arbitrary by code proposal. So an arbitrary by code proposal has the call data in it when you create it, and you're bound to executing that exact call data. And that's why it doesn't work for ERC20 swaps where the price is moving, as John pointed out. So this is actually a new proposal type that's called the operator proposal. And it basically allows you to separate the consensus of the passing of the proposal from the execution of the proposal. When you actually execute the proposal for an operator proposal, you can provide that arbitrary call data in the execution. And we have these operator contracts that just need to follow this certain interface in order for them to be used within this operator proposal. So we have an NFT operator where you encode a struct of the contract address, the optionally the max price per item, the total amount of ETH that you're going to spend, for example. And when you pass that operator proposal, you encode that struct so the operator knows what the constraints are. And then when you execute it, you pass the arbitrary call data in. And then we actually temporarily transfer the ETH, for example, or the ERC20s into this operator contract. So it executes the swap in an isolated environment. So when you actually execute the swap, it doesn't have control of any of your other assets other than the ones that you're actually acting on there. So right now, it's just an NFT operator and an ERC20 operator. But we could introduce new operators in the future by just adhering to this operator interface.

Nicholas: Okay, I have a few questions. So are operators deployed when the proposal succeeds or prior to the proposal being voted on?

Steve Klebanoff: When you create an operator proposal, you specify the operator address of the operator that you want to interact with. And you specify like an encoded kind of like, like basically any call data. But in these cases, it's like it's an encoded struct of that represents like the intent of the operator. So again, that's like the NFT contract address or the max price per item, or like the from token or to token address for your C20 swap, as well as like some additional constraints.

John C. Palmer: So I think there's a lot of pieces here that are maybe like hard to parse out. So I would say there's like three parts to this. There's the UX consideration, then there's like the gas cost consideration, and there's a security consideration, right? So from the UX standpoint, the thing that this is great for is the fact that I don't have to know the exact call data when I propose it. And therefore, I'm free to take my time in the voting process or talking with my group about if we want to do this. That's the UX part. The next part is the security part, right? So users of Party don't really have to think about this. But obviously, we do building the protocol, which is you could imagine saying, hey, I have this, I have constraints for this swap. I'm only willing to spend up to this amount of ETH to get this many USDC. As long as it's in that range, go ahead and execute call data as long as I get the right amount of USDC. The problem is if you were naive about this, and you just let that call data be to be executed by the Party itself, that call data may do something malicious with other assets that are sitting in the Party. It might get you the USDC that you wanted, and it might only spend the ETH that you wanted. But who knows, maybe it transferred your ape or something like that, right? So you have to be careful about that, too. So that's the security part. And for that reason, when an operator is executed, all the assets that are going to be used to execute the transaction for the operator are transferred out of the Party and into an operator contract. The operator in that kind of clean sandbox environment executes the trade, checks that all the constraints were met, and then transfers everything back into the Party. Does that mean it takes two transactions?

Nicholas: One to forward the approved ETH to the operator and one to execute the operator?

John C. Palmer: Yes, there is a transfer there to the operator.

Steve Klebanoff: Sorry, but the execution all happens in one transaction, though. It's like when you executed it, it atomically transfers the assets to the operator, executes the call data, and then transfers you your desired assets, like all in one transaction.

Nicholas: Got it. Okay.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, it's only one transaction submission for a user to transfer calls under the hood. But I just wanted to address the other question you asked, which is like, when is that operator deployed? The operators are actually singletons for the whole protocol. So the operators, they never leave, they never have any assets in them. Everything happens atomically, right? So in one transaction, the single operator contract receives some assets, does something with them, and then it like wipes itself clean and sends everything back to the Party afterwards. And because that's all atomic, you don't need to redeploy a new operator contract every time you propose something like this. You're just creating a proposal, but there's no contract deployments happening.

Nicholas: Okay, because that's what I wanted to know. In the proposal, like, let's say you declare your, you vote on some intent. It wasn't clear to me how you could be sure that the operator would execute, you know, it can just accept the struct and ignore it. If it was an arbitrarily deployed contract that was specified in the proposal, I could just give you, you know, a malicious operator that I write, which I guess maybe I could, but the front end won't naturally support. But what you're telling me is that the operator contracts themselves are, there is a canonical operator for each type of action. And so you know, when you pass the intent, as you pass the intent during the proposal phase, you know that it will be executed properly. when at a later stage, the permission to people actually execute the swap, right? That's like the security logic.

John C. Palmer: That is correct. And yeah, I know this all sounds hairy, like, I guess this is more of like the protocol conversation. But just to be clear, like for users in the app, like the experience is, hey, I said I wanted to swap ETH for some other token. Oh, we passed it. Cool. I click the button to do the swap and it just happens. So a lot of this stuff is all that kind of engineering and security stuff is happening under the hood. But yeah, it is important, obviously, if you're building a protocol to be thinking about all this stuff.

Nicholas: Steve, did you want to add color on any of that?

Steve Klebanoff: I just wanted to say like one more technical note, but then it might be good to kind of like bring it back high level is that you're right that you could deploy like whatever operator that you want. But as you astutely guessed, it would not like surface in our front end. We kind of only have front end support for like our canonical operators. And then also there's an explicit like asset data array that specifies like the tokens that will be transferred into the operator as well. So that's like very explicit at the protocol level, providing like some level of safety there.

Nicholas: OK, cool. So so this all makes sense. You mentioned like. it'll only show the sort of known first party operators. I'm picturing that five star. What is it? Do you have a name for that thing? The like Sheriff's Badge party illustration?

John C. Palmer: Are you referring to the party seal?

Nicholas: It's like a golden star.

Danny Aranda: The gold star.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's more of a marketing thing.

Nicholas: But yeah, party approved operator. Yeah, party approved intent. Yes, exactly. With the seal approval of party. So we sort of mentioned intent, you know, it's technical, but you know, it's pretty pretty technical audience. So I'm happy to dive into the details. I think that's what people want to know. Most of all, you mentioned intense. Do you care about intense or that's just like the popular term to describe this? It does seem to really match the scenario that was presented for you very well. I don't know if Steve or John, you want to speak to that?

John C. Palmer: Yeah, I think, you know, I guess intense, if you know that blog post I wrote a couple years ago called scissor labels, it feels like those are just right to become one of those things where like, everybody wants to call their thing intense because it sounds cool. It's like the latest thing. But nobody really knows if there's like a, you know, this is where you should be asking is not what counts as multiplayer, what counts as intense. I just think that as like a general notion, I think it's a helpful way to think about it like an intent, like you're telling the party, I have an intent to do this swap, but I don't know exactly what it's going to look like yet. But do we all agree about this general intent? And then we'll do it. But yeah, like, I don't think I think it's helpful to describe it that way, just insofar as it kind of describes the behavior. I'm not. I'm very interested in like all the conversations that were happening around. I guess it was ECC when the intense conversation was really popping off. I think that is like a really promising, cool new conversation. But like, I don't think we're thinking about it in those terms of like, oh, this cool new like paradigm is happening. Let's, let's call it that just because it's cool.

Nicholas: Yeah, the operator paradigm or architecture that you're describing seems to me like very flexible. We're talking about two most popular types of transactions, but basically anything could be written into the singleton contract in the style you described in order to be able to pass proposal or make proposals that are intense around whatever area of activity is interesting on Ethereum. So it seems like you've really, like seriously leveled up how flexible the parties are.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, I mean, I think I will say like, if you're saying there's a technical audience, and there's maybe, I mean, I definitely see a few already, Solidity legends in the crowd. But I mean, I would be curious to see somebody write their own operator for something else. Like, obviously, we kind of tackled like the biggest two, but I think there's probably a long tail of like, a bunch of stuff in Ethereum that people want to do. But it's hard to do if you are going to take, you know, up to 24 hours to vote on it or something. So I'd be curious to eventually see, you know, like an ecosystem of operators being built by independent devs where they could actually solve a problem. If anybody here has like an idea for that or a use case, definitely shoot one of us a DM because we're really interested in that stuff.

Nicholas: Awesome. Okay, I only have you guys for another half hour or so. So I want to get through a bunch more questions. We talked a little bit about the host, but I feel like the host and the. whatever the. what's the title of the permission to people for an operator? The people who are allowed to make the swap?

John C. Palmer: We call those executors.

Nicholas: Executors. Okay. So like hosts and executors both seem like two designs where you're attempting to make it delegate power to a trusted party to accelerate the velocity of the party. Is that accurate? And is that like, it just so happens. these are the two things. they seem like things that make party very unique. I don't know if you have any thoughts on what velocity if that is that's going to come through in other aspects of the product later. Or if maybe those could be the same role. I guess it depends on the specific proposal. But I'm curious about the kind of actual subjective experience of being in a party. And I feel like one thing we haven't fully expressed is that if you delegate a lot of power to the host, then the host can just like start ripping through proposals and executing them and really skipping a lot of the slow governance that people who are familiar with DAOs are maybe more used to.

John C. Palmer: That is accurate. I would say so both of these roles, I mean, the classic engineering thing that like any product even in like B2B SaaS solves at scales, like eventually you build role based access control, which is just like a system of defined roles with different privileges over different resources or whatever. But like, I would say both hosts and executors are just different roles that have different privileges kind of on different scales. So host is more global to the party. And I would say the host should really be thought of not necessarily as accelerating the party, but more like kind of protecting the party from harm or wrongdoing. Like we said, like the host can't just, you know, the host doesn't get extra votes or anything like that. The only thing they can do is cancel proposals or turn on rage quit. But the executors is more saying like for this particular trade, this is who I trust. Right. So like we actually have a team party at PartyDAO that we use like all the time to kind of do our degen shitcoin trading or NFT purchasing or whatever. And it's actually illustrates the concept well, which is like if we're doing some particular ERC20 DeFi trade, it's based on like some technical analysis. There's someone on the team who's like the most knowledgeable about when exactly we should be buying, you know, something on a DeFi protocol. So we'll make that guy the executor because he's like the person trusted for this trade. But when to buy a particular NFT or execute a sweep and pick the right items in a collection, let's say your floor sweeping terraforms or something, there might be somebody on the team who knows the most about what trades are good. Right. So you might say, I only want this person to be the executor for that one. So I'd say the executor role is less about speed. It's more about like who's most qualified to do this action or who do we trust to do this action. And the host role is more of a kind of like a protective role. How do we make sure that, you know, we veto a proposal that isn't kind of in our best interest or something like that. But I think you're also bringing up maybe then a third thing and I'll pause after this, which is just speed. And I do think the way that party voting works, and the fact that delegation is supported, which I guess we haven't talked about yet, does mean that like you can pass proposals and do a bunch of stuff really fast in a party in a way that I do think would be like much, much harder in other products like multi-sector DAOs. So that's what you are getting at. We could talk about that.

Nicholas: Yeah, I was confused, confusing host with the delegation. Maybe you can describe a little bit about just how quickly it can move if a sufficient portion of the voting weight is delegated.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, so just a quick thing on voting in general. Most DAOs that you've heard of, they have a fixed length voting period. So take like NounsDAO, actually I might mess this one up, but I think they have seven day voting. So any proposal waits seven days. And for seven days people vote. And after seven days, you know the result of the vote so you can do the thing. Obviously, you don't really, if you're a group wallet or trying to go fast, choosing any amount of time that you're going to have to wait for every single thing. you do kind of sucks because that's going to be your bottleneck at that point. So parties have a different type of voting system where you choose a number, basically a percentage of the party that has to say yes before you do something, but you don't have to wait a certain amount of time to do it. So if you make a proposal and let's say you have a 30% acceptance threshold. If 30% of people vote for it in the first 10 seconds, you can do it 10 seconds later. So combine that with delegation. You can, if you want to, you can get your party into like ultra fast mode basically where everybody delegates to one person or two people or like whatever the right amount of trust is. And then those one, two, three people, whatever the number is, can just be passing proposals as fast as they want. And you really aren't bottlenecked at all by time constraints.

Nicholas: Very cool. Steve, did you want to say anything or should we move on?

Steve Klebanoff: This is just a little bit of a throwback to the previous conversation, but also just for people that are interested in the technical details, going back to like the host or allowed executors concepts, like because the host is just an address that could also be a smart contract. It doesn't have to be an EOA. So we haven't deployed anything to mainnet related to that, but it is also interesting to think about the design possibilities. When you think about a host who again has the ability to cancel or veto proposals as well as turn on rage quit, for example. We've been talking about that being like an individual, like with the EOA, but there's also some interesting things you could think about if you actually assign that host privilege to a smart contract. So even though again, we haven't implemented any of this, it's more just brainstorming. You could imagine introducing like democratic turning on a rage quit by assigning the host role to a smart contract that would be aware of voting power, be able to recognize when there's consensus and then turn it on that way. So just for the more technical folks out there, it is interesting to think about what is it like if a host is a smart contract, not an EOA, because there's some interesting design possibilities there.

Nicholas: That is interesting.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, actually also on that note, in like a short hackathon thing, we built a democratic veto contract. It's not a feature in our app, but you could imagine instead of a single person with the veto, you could say, hey, it's 30% of votes in our party to pass a proposal, but it's 15% to veto it. So we let like a shorter, a smaller minority veto stuff, if there's anybody really opinion about not doing something. But you could play with those two variables and change the logic for that by writing code for the host.

Nicholas: Cool. What's the name of the party that you guys are degenning it?

John C. Palmer: That party is just called Team Degen, which is the name of our Discord channel.

Nicholas: Alpha League. All right, let's see it. I mean, are there profile pages for like EOAs or addresses on the site? Like could people find it if they just found you on the site? Is that possible?

Danny Aranda: Yeah, you can just go to party.app.

John C. Palmer: slash profile slash just whatever your ENS is.

Danny Aranda: And of course, you can type in your ENS and you can see all the parties that you've joined.

Nicholas: Amazing. Okay, people are gonna go check out your degenning wallet, I'm sure, or your degenning party, I should say. Okay, so we've talked a lot about the contracts. Is there anything else about the contracts that we should discuss in terms of the architecture? We have like the party, we have the crowdfund element that we discussed, we have these new operators. Is there any other major architectural piece that is worth discussing before we move on?

John C. Palmer: I think we've covered most of the important stuff. You know, we're a software team, so we're always shipping. There will be more stuff to talk about soon. But I think the main takeaway probably right now, especially on the technical level, is having introduced this operators feature, I think it's really hard to underestimate how big of an improvement it is compared to anything else in the market. Like, I don't know, I'm literally on like 30 multi-sigs. I've been part of DAOs. These products really cannot be used for trading tokens or buying NFTs, which is like the things you do in Ethereum. So in terms of just having a product out there in the market that is a consumer product for using Ethereum as a group, I think it's like the first time that this feels meaningfully helpful and valuable and people can go do the same things that they're doing day to day in their rainbow wallet or whatever wallet they're using.

Nicholas: Totally. It is a constant headache for people in multi-sigs to just swap. So definitely, definitely makes sense. So we talked a lot about the protocol. I want to talk about the brand a little bit. Party has a very strong brand aesthetic and it's different. It's opinionated and it exudes a different kind of ethos than your bog standard CT, DGen brand, or even NFT brand. It's somewhere in a different part of the space. I think we should talk about Kazoo a little bit, but also like what are the values that you're trying to convey with this art style and as it permeates also through the UX, etc. What are the values that you're really trying to communicate?

John C. Palmer: Big questions. Yeah, so just to talk about...

Danny Aranda: This is a big topic.

John C. Palmer: Yeah, so I'll send you a press release later.

Nicholas: I'm just kidding. I think so.

John C. Palmer: when PartyDao first started... So just to talk about Kazoo, PartyDao as a brand has a mascot. His name is Kazoo. He's kind of a little personification of the party emoji. It's gone through many iterations now where it really doesn't look like the party emoji anymore, but that is how it started. And that was just like when PartyDao first started, it was just kind of like an instinct. We should have a cool little guy to represent the brand. So we created that guy and a lot has kind of evolved around that. But I think the instinct there just to lay some basics is that we're building a consumer product. I think there's a lot of stuff in crypto that feels like infrastructure or even like market-based like DeFi stuff. Some of it feels pretty good and consumery, but there's still kind of maybe like a fintech flavor of brands that you can end up with. And I think for us, the important thing, just coming back to like the multiplayer conversation in the first product was, I think when you talk about a group of people with, let's say, a group wallet or a party, there's maybe like an instinct to think about this. is a product like invest with your friends or you're going to like... It's like Robinhood, but crypto, maybe social version. That's really not how we think about the product. We think Ethereum has a lot of really cool and fun stuff to do on it that groups might want to do together. And it's not just about like investing and being in the green or making a profit. So I think just like really smooth brain, reductive take on some of the brand values there. But it's just like, it should feel like a consumer product. It should feel fun, which is maybe some of the like Sony or Sega or like Nintendo vibe. that may be trite or like cliche, but just having a little bit of the video game aesthetic, consumer aesthetics and trying to lean into things that feel fun and easy and fast compared to stuff that might feel like infrastructure or fintech is probably just like a good starting point for where we come at that from.

Nicholas: You moved away from...

Steve Klebanoff: I think...

Nicholas: Oh, sorry. Go for it. Please, Danny.

Danny Aranda: Yeah, I was gonna say, just in terms of like positioning and how that expresses itself in the brand, if you look at alternatives for groups, like how can a group come together and like do something on chain? You've got multisites, you've got DAOs. Multisites, you go to the notice of safety landing page, it's just all about like custody, asset management. Like John was mentioning, it's like a lot of these products can be very like financially focused and then DAOs maybe have like a bureaucratic lens to them. I think what we were trying to lean into is just like having this be like a much more action-focused product. It's about going out and doing things and what you do should feel fast and it should feel fun and doing things on chain can be like a really exilinary experience and that can extend beyond just trading. I mean, just in the audience now, like there's several people who work on those types of things that are like just beyond speculative trading of assets, like Cirsu doing an eSports DAO, Scott Tato and Charuz, you know, done a number of projects. I mean, like I think part of our thesis is that there's going to be a lot of things to do on Ethereum and we've talked about a few times on this call about, you know, sweeps and swaps are kind of like the main things to do, but eventually it's going to be pretty broad

John C. Palmer: and

Danny Aranda: we think that

Nicholas: as,

Danny Aranda: you know, as that expands, you're going to want to do those things more with like your friends and other people and that'll kind of like increase the market or the reason you would want to use a good product. So we get really excited about, you know, what's going to be possible on chain and the reasons you would want to do that together.

Nicholas: Okay, I have a difficult question for you. Anyone can take this. If Party is multiplayer, then why is Kazoo always on his own?

Danny Aranda: It's a question that has come up.

Nicholas: Oh, really?

John C. Palmer: Canceled. Done. My response, you're thinking too hard, man. Weird little guy. Move on. Weird little guy, fun vibe, he's a homie. We're good.

Nicholas: Got it.

John C. Palmer: I'm just, I'm just messing around. feel free to say whatever. I just wanted to. I think kazoo kind of just represents like more of more of an ethos right like. it doesn't need to be so literal like oh it's a group product so it needs to be a group. it's aetherium so there has to be chain there has to be chains and blockchains like. I think it's like the kazoo is kind of like the personality or like the like just like any mascots and anthropomorphization of uh of some kind of I don't I really don't want to say vibe but like some kind of personality or set of values. and uh and I think that honestly that that's like easier to come through in an individual than through through like a group of people. right like individuals have have uh have personalities and that's that's just like a very simple way to think about it.

Danny Aranda: okay kazoo is meant to be someone you want in your group right right.

Nicholas: it's interesting though because I feel like you almost want to see a group of people in a car like hitting mailboxes with a baseball bat or something like a party is uh the social you know they're. the argument in the product is that there's something extra. there's surplus value when we get together is the argument of the product. but in the in I love the branding but it does feel like oh it actually doesn't say that like full out. it just says like this guy is he definitely has the ethos. I agree with you. it comes through his energy like driving the dirt bike or going to work with the coffee or you know. it's like the the peppiest version of us. uh but it is. it is a single character. I don't know. it's interesting.

Steve Klebanoff: I'm curious to see if I will say that our team dgen party does feel like driving around in a car hitting mailboxes.

Nicholas: it's something I because you.

John C. Palmer: well the next kazoo graphic will put out a kazoo smashing.

Steve Klebanoff: let's go okay.

Nicholas: uh another hard question for you. so uh people are familiar with the seven deadly sins. uh the eighth cardinal sin is introducing cursor lag. why has a party chosen to sin?

John C. Palmer: uh yeah that's a good question. um patience is the virtue. uh I'm just kidding. no this is this is to be. to be completely honest this is this is on the roadmap. uh it's kind of been a persistent like bug ticket but there's been a number of things that have been more important to us to to ship. sooner we're gonna get to it. we're gonna get to it. it won't be too long. but yeah I I feel you as well I I bring it up a lot. I think all of us all of us bring it up a lot but it's kind of uh it's kind of a task that always gets pushed down the list. uh in favor of of like net new functionality.

Nicholas: fair enough I know you not a choice to send.

John C. Palmer: not not not a choice not a choice to commit that uh. and by the way by the way it hasn't. it hasn't always been that way. but uh yeah there's some. uh there's some things that have come up that we need to adapt to the other site.

Nicholas: that does it. that I notice is pinata. uh the ipfs provider um and uh anyway I noticed I knew you would notice. so I was curious. I had to ask the question oh did someone want to know?

John C. Palmer: very fair you're right you're right that is a tough question because it sucks and I agree. so uh yeah we're working on.

Nicholas: uh we had a couple questions from philip leao on warp or on farcaster I should say so. philip mentions that multiplayer fantasy sports between dows would be a fantastic thing to happen. uh imagine a uniswap versus ave versus maker dow versus 0x fantasy football league. uh so philip asked um is party thinking about fantasy sports for ethereum? uh have you had any thoughts about sports?

Danny Aranda: we've definitely thought about like games and just some type of competitive dynamic between groups. um so earlier this year uh winter uh created a on-chain tic-tac-toe game and then created two parties to play that tic-tac-toe game. I think there was 40 people on each team so like an 80 person wow tic-tac-toe game. and they were literally. uh they were. they were voting and proposing and voting on like where to place the pieces for each turn within each group. um so so interesting very fun. and then also more recently uh we did a party versus party art battle where and sherooz who's in the audience worked closely on this. uh so shout out sherooz. um basically two parties competed to create an nft collection and the one that minted the most uh would win. and what they would win is all the mint revenue went into a common prize pool contract and uh presumably the most like claimed that prize pool. so um uh we are interested in that kind of like competitive dynamic as like a use case for for parties and uh just more of like a pvp setting got it.

Nicholas: philip also asked this other question uh about multi-chain. in short have you thought about going to l2s? or how do you think about going to l2s? if you if you are thinking about it yeah um.

John C. Palmer: so i think uh the historical answer would have been um for party bid. party bid was all about group uh nft activity. so we only really cared a lot about being where most nft activity was happening and historically that's been ethereum mainnet l1. but um that all that all changed recently obviously when we released party which is more of just doing anything on ethereum. so being on an l2 now is is definitely a lot more relevant to us from our own product perspectives and then i think kind of amplifying that is obviously a lot of developments in the ecosystem over the past few months with the advent of infrastructure that makes it really easy to run to roll. your shouldn't say that but roll your own roll up. set up your own op stack chain um zora network base coming out like um i think these these chains have been really interesting to watch because there's actually a lot of consumer activity there as well. so basically it's relevant. uh it's a priority for us to be on l2s. we're still figuring out exact plans there. so i can't say like when and what networks or whatever but it's it's obviously been a very top maybe high level.

Nicholas: do you think that it would be like a separate instance of the protocol in each uh like layer? or do you imagine that you would have membership on one layer and be affecting change on other layers? i guess you can already do that in the sense that if you have a party on l1 you can maybe bridge. you know you can use hop or whatever from l1 but you kind of can't act from l2. uh do you imagine that there would be party consistency across layers or that it would probably be just separate party like a party would live on a specific chain?

Steve Klebanoff: i think the the simplest first approach is just to have like a separate party uh deployment on each chain but also on the developer side. it's uh. everyone asks when l2 nobody asks how l2 and uh think of the devs. please sir like there's a just a fair amount of dependencies even that we have for uh like making a consumer grade party experience right like as i mentioned we're using reservoir for doing the nft sweeps we're using 0x api for doing the erc20 swaps like we have nft made metadata providers that we use like all in addition to like you need to have reliable rpc endpoints as well. so you know it's one thing to deploy like kind of like a isolated like toy smart contract to a bunch of chains. it's another thing to like really ensure that you can have the proper full consumer experience on a new chain. and there's a fair amount of dependencies that need to be uh met to do that and as john was kind of speaking to there also need to be like valuable and interesting assets on that chain that you would want to interact with. and i think we're now finally getting to the point where like our dependencies are being met on a variety of l2s as well as there's been like significant interest in some of these erc20s and 721s on these l2s where it's very much top of mind for us.

Nicholas: yeah i can imagine a party being very very fun on a cheap l2. uh where things are happening so fast and you don't really have to hesitate before spinning up a new party or you know voting on a proposal i think it could be a step change in in the infrastructure could change the qualitative experience of it. so that's exciting. agreed so we only have a couple minutes left. one question that we didn't really cover. that i think is important is you know party protocol there's the party.app user experience the the front end. that simplifies a lot of smart choices that are made in the party protocol. do you imagine other other interfaces like? there were some interfaces there was like a loot exchange um by tyson at zora if i recall correctly with the original party bid. that was like tailor-made for the the loot collection if my memory serves. uh do you imagine people doing like specific interfaces on top of the party protocol that are different from party.app? first question and second question like in what sense is it a protocol? do you anticipate like how how committed are you to vertical integration for the experience? and if it is a protocol like how do you expect people to interact with it to build on top of it?

John C. Palmer: yeah i think we we would love to see a lot more development on top of the protocol. i think one thing that's really important to us and um that if you've looked at the repo you'd see it's all gpl3. so it's totally open license it's not business license it's not just ours to build on. so yeah you know i think the mark of a successful protocol on ethereum is that you have people building on top of it and that even other people besides ourselves could build like fully profitable applications and businesses on top of the party protocol. i think that's like kind of the dream state i think the. the reality though is like maybe the lazy ideas like for anything whether it's cc0 art or an open source protocol like putting it out there and being like anyone can use it. it's like okay who wants to use your your brand new thing that has like you know whatever no visibility yet or if it's day one like no users yet. i think for us we're still. we need to prove the value of the protocol right so in our minds like very obviously a really core part of the ecosystem that needs to be there. but i think the way you have to prove it out for people and honestly you could even point to some stuff like uniswap as maybe like examples of where maybe the ui is like undervalued historically. but i think you you prove it out out by billing building the first great app on top of it yourselves. so i'd say right now we kind of have to do both in parallel. we build the protocol we build the app. there are outside contributors to the protocol to some degree although uh you know there could obviously be a lot more. but over time i think as we see the adoption of parties on party.app and the quality of the protocol both improve. i hope and expect that we're going to see more people one contributing to the protocol repo in terms of like writing things like operators or new crowdfund methods in the repo. you can already do that today. feel free to open a pr like it's all open source and we check everything and then to building interfaces on top of the protocol. so um yeah again given that you mentioned it's a technical audience if if there's anybody here who or who listens to this later who's interested in doing either of those things uh definitely dm one of us on twitter because we're we're really interested in that stuff.

Nicholas: can you imagine what? what an opinion? yeah please i'm sorry.

Steve Klebanoff: i just will say though that there are like some real technical considerations. when you think about people building on top of the protocol and to john's point i still feel like we're very much in like proving out like the canonical like uh front end at this very moment in time even though everything is open source and people could build on top of it. i think at the technical level like there are some things that we did to like save gas but that actually make it harder for external developers to build on. potentially so for example like uh often like we store like a hash of a struct instead of like storing the entire struct on chain for example. so in order to execute something related to that you need to actually know like the raw data of the struct and pass it in as parameters that you would have to get from historical events for example. so um when it feels like the right time in our roadmap i'm definitely open to kind of like building out the developer infrastructure to make it a lot easier to to build on top of. but again i think to john's point that kind of like comes after like proving out like our like go-to instance as like providing a ton of value. um and also right now the protocol is moving pretty quickly like we have two full-time really talented solidity engineers working on it deploying things like operators and a bunch of new features. so it's still very much like uh in flux in terms of like having new capabilities at the protocol um layer but i do think kind of later in the product's life cycle. we will invest more in making it easier for people to build upon um. but yeah i just kind of want to be candid about like what the constraints are right now.

Nicholas: danny did you want to say something? or i have another question?

Danny Aranda: if not uh i would just add um you know it's. it's more than just showing an example of the protocol and letting that inspire people. it's also i think it's like a sequencing issue too like developers want to build on something because it gets them distribution. so the reason you like build on ios and you know put your your app on the app store is like there's a lot of people with iphones and those that's a large like potential audience to have. so i think um to best serve developers i feel like building your own relationship with end users is like the smartest first thing to do. that means building like the first reference app that actually gets traction. i think from there you start to see like a lot more uh developer interest. so i i think part of this question is just a sequencing question and just uh it's not like developers aren't interesting now it's more like well when are you most useful as a developer?

Nicholas: right if someone were to build on top of it. would they be able to collect fees?

John C. Palmer: yeah they they could. um i mean there's a number of ways you can do that. like if you're building the application you could always write your own contract that bundles like a party contribution with for example like a one dollar fee. so like what zora is doing on a mint you could write a contract that just right calls mint and also charges a little bit extra. also the way that fees exist in the protocol today are when you when you initialize a new party you pass in the fee bps and the fee recipient. so um yeah like if you are if you built a front that was deploying parties for people you could set the fees to yourself with whatever fee amount you want. that's kind of not as flexible. right now the protocol only takes fees in like a specific way when parties do uh an action called a distribution. so that's kind of like a pretty limited maybe thinking around like how to charge fees from parties. but that's what our app does. but you could always like point that to your own app if that's what you wanted to do.

Nicholas: very cool are there any uh like use case specific front ends that you could imagine someone building today or operators. if there's a dev in the audience that's like yeah i will i will build something. is there anything where you're like? oh there could be a really specific front end or an operator that we're not covering something that someone could try?

John C. Palmer: yeah i'd say uh in terms of operators is a kind of a cop-out. but this is just something someone asked for this week. there's one party that's kind of a nouns dow sub dow called keep nouns weird. they have a party with three people in it and a pool of eath and basically what they do is they try to buy the votes via the governance pool. uh to help fund proposals i think are weird and creative. so they're just trying to be like the the sub faction of nouns dow. that like makes the coolest stuff happen. and uh i think they were more interested in an operator that let them bid in that auction with more flexibilities. so right now they do successfully bid in it. they connect via wallet connect and bid. but the challenge is like you might i guess the operator here would be to say hey let let like noun 40 who's one of the main people in this group. let 940 call this specific function selector on this contract with a payable amount up to you know x at any time in the next 24 hours and we pass that proposal. so then that person could just sit there and wait until you know the last minute of the auction and uh and be changing the amount of the bid. and up until that moment rather than knowing like oh we passed your proposal to bid 0.2 eth. but now i need to go past another one for 0.3. they could have teed up an operator for that specific function selector. that said we're willing to spend up to 0.3. just choose the amount that you need. a bid you know in the final moments. so that's the type of example where you have something where you know a continuous market is updating exactly what you might want to do up until the time of execution.

Nicholas: parties as political factions political parties actually makes a lot of sense within larger dows that that seems like a great way to coordinate.

John C. Palmer: yeah i've been pretty. this has been really interesting to watch one like this group probably because the arbitrage opportunity on the nouns governance pools has had a i think an outsized amount of influence over some proposals so far just by like pulling their eth and bidding on these pools. and also i'm pretty interested like if you see a lot of nouns dow or honestly other dow proposals today for funding they usually end up funding uh something by like sending some funds to either someone a trusted person's wallet or sometimes a multi-sig. but i'm interested if like if nouns dow and like their governance contracts are like your you're kind of like mothership or like the 18 wheeler i'm interested in like them augmenting that with like you know the motorcycle or like the sports car on the side that goes out and does the the specific missions. so i think it'd be cool to see you know now and sour other dows every time they actually want to fund a small group to go like complete a mission or complete a task to have a party that goes and does that. it's a one nice way to to augment like a heavy dow with a nice like lightweight fast party.

Nicholas: definitely maybe we can close with a few other examples of interesting parties that you've seen. i was just looking at the site earlier and i saw there's a crowdfund for eigen layer. i didn't even know that they had a token that you could purchase. but they're trying to buy eigen layer tokens or something.

Danny Aranda: there there's a few. i mean you know sometimes upwards of like 100 parties started today. so i haven't seen that that specific one. i mean to call out some interesting ones. recently so you know we released a more generalized version of the product that extends beyond nfts like just over a month ago a month and a half ago. and so for instance someone set up a party called soul quest nick who has a project called fam. basically that put together a hip-hop group and the party acted as a crowdfund. but but the party was also able to vote on like. hey who do we want to uh who want to vote on and like include in this hip-hop group? and then we'll we'll pay for. you know their um you know their expenses related to creating some songs and uh they all got sent to fwb fest. they created a they recorded a song there. they're going to release it as an nft. um you know some of the proceeds from those sales will go back to the party. uh there's kind of like interesting dynamics. they can take advantage of using the product uh in just making that product happen. but uh that that that uh is interesting party because it was the first time it kind of like be like a general crowdfund to go. do uh an offline like an iro project. there's also just been parties that have been uh you know more actively doing like the straight like just nft purchase use case. uh zero expanse from pseudo has been like both using pseudo swap creating liquidity on pseudo swap specifically for base schools inside of a base schools party. uh and that party's like been fairly active over the past few weeks.

Nicholas: that's interesting. so wait so they're pulling eth to sweep base schools to lp them on pseudo correct.

Danny Aranda: yeah so they'll buy. they'll like use either like pull e into a party. uh use the party interact to swap to buy some baseball and then like lp those baseballs in pseudo swap as well.

Nicholas: wow pretty cool that's wild. did either of the other of you? uh seen anything you think's worth mentioning?

John C. Palmer: i could plug one like less common use case of parties. but i think it's pretty interesting to see parties used for like an off-chain goal. i recently started a party that basically rented out a box for the u.s open. so basically as you know i'm a big tennis fan. the u.s open starts in two weeks here in new york and uh i thought it'd be cool to use a party to raise money to rent out like a crypto box basically. so i just started a party like a box seats 24 people. uh it also costs like roughly 24 000 so it's pricey. it's only for you know the dedicated fans. but um i started a party that was basically a membership mint with a fixed supply of 24 it was about like half an eath per person. so again it wasn't cheap but sent the link around to a bunch of people who i know and so who are also tennis fans or i thought would just be down to come hang. and uh we basically got the money swapped it to usdc and uh booked the box. so september 1st. uh if you're streaming the u.s open on your computer on your tv maybe you'll be able to see a bunch of uh crypto folks hanging out in this. uh in this box.

Nicholas: that's cool. the on-chain to off-chain. um the other one that comes to mind is the party versus party where you did an open edition mint that benefited the participants in each party. that i feel like that's under explored too like collectively because you're generating sort of starting to generate the snowball culturally that might justify participation in an open edition by bootloading it. from a collective perspective i feel like there's something cool there.

John C. Palmer: yeah definitely so that kind of has two narratives to it. the first was like group competition which one smooth brain take and i think wilson cusack from from coinbase and like non-style trees about this. a lot is like underrated use case of crypto like people are just bored and want something fun to do on the internet. and uh there's a use case there. that's just like two teams of people competing over. anything is going to be like one of the more fun things that you can be a part of. so yeah we worked on that with charuse who again is in the audience and what that's one narrative like two parties competing to mint the more popular thing. but yeah what you're saying is kind of like maybe the underrated or like there which is like oh wait a minute you actually had a group of people who crowdfunded created an nft made revenue from it and then got the revenue back from the party and in this case since it was just like a prize split the party. so you're also kind of using the party and its distribution function also because you're a split. and um yeah if you if you weren't doing it that way you could end up with like a profitable party. right where group of people creates a mint or does something else on chain. they make money they use it to like pay someone to do the next one and you actually have that flywheel where the party could just continue funding its own existence over time.

Nicholas: it does feel like uh like an influencer outside of web3 could even use that to or inside of web3 could use that to create some kind of happening and then feed that back into either the pockets of the people who supported them or otherwise just like throw a party with the money. or it seems like there's potential like. what was it? there was some like twitch streamer who caused like a riot in new york giving away ps5s recently. like it feels like that kind of thing. i feel like party could be involved in that kind of domestic incident.

John C. Palmer: that's that's. i don't even know about that. i would have been there. i'm still playing apex legends on my ps4.

Nicholas: maybe you gotta hold back up next time on the us open box. i know.

John C. Palmer: yeah i should have saved my eat.

Steve Klebanoff: i'll just say that one more example of an interesting party was the guys from hook protocol who do like nft options on chain. um started a party that people contributed to and then they i believe they were like writing milady call options in it and they actually ended up um doing really well uh on that. so i think there's also a use case for like nft fi or dfi stuff that require some sort of like non-trivial like protocol or market specific knowledge that you might want to participate like in the protocol or like in having some financial exposure there but you might not know exactly like how to configure your position or you might need some size to enter that position that you don't have yourself. so i think there's also something there to um starting a party uh delegating to some big brains and then allowing them to kind of take out interesting like dfi or nft fi uh positions with those group funds. then maybe also you could kind of build in some sort of fee uh to like a proposal as well in order to like incentivize um the people that are actually kind of doing the big brain configurations or setting up the the positions. but i thought that party in particular was a pretty cool uh use case of like group finance.

Nicholas: were the call options that they were writing somehow encoded on chain or it was more social trust participation?

Steve Klebanoff: no no it was. it was on chain through the hook protocol. it was all on chain interactions cool amazing.

Nicholas: uh well i think we we did a good job covering most of the subjects we had to cover. uh john steve danny this was awesome. thank you so much for coming and talking about party.

Danny Aranda: this was great. so thank you nicholas.

Steve Klebanoff: thank you sir.

John C. Palmer: yeah thanks for all the thoughtful preparation. yeah good questions. uh make it easy and fun to be on this type of thing.

Nicholas: awesome. um if people want to check things out what should they look at? party.app.

John C. Palmer: yeah party.app is is the is the app. so that's the main thing. and then if you don't already follow party dow on twitter that's where you know we talk about and announce everything new. the handle is just p r t y dow. and um we haven't seen too many impersonators. but just be careful on twitter like make sure you follow the right accounts we'll never tweet about some token or anything like that. so yeah that's us cool.

Nicholas: and docs.partydow.org. if you want to see all how the contracts work we didn't even talk about but there's some pretty awesome. uh on-chain rendering contracts which are not new but also worth checking out if you're interested in on-chain svg awesome. okay thank you everybody. this is great. thanks everybody for coming to listen. see you uh next week. uh next friday 5 p.m eastern time i'm going to be talking to the people. the cto of privy which is the wallet provider embedded shemir wallet provider to friend.tech. so if you're interested in that new pwa stack make sure to be there 5 p.m friday next week or the following week on the podcast. all right thanks again john steve. danny this is great all right thank you appreciate. you see ya. hey thanks for listening to this episode of web3 galaxy brain. to keep up with everything web3 follow me on twitter at nicholas with four leading ends. you can find links to the topics discussed on today's episode in the show notes. podcast feed links are available at web3galaxybrain.com. web3 galaxy brain airs live most friday afternoons at 5 p.m eastern time 2200 utc on twitter spaces. i look forward to seeing you there.