In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Isaac Patka about the evolving landscape of security in decentralized systems. Isaac Patka is a developer and founder in the Ethereum ecosystem specializing in security and compliance infrastructure. He is the co-founder of Shield3, which conducts incident response training through Wargames exercises for major DeFi and infrastructure protocols, performs operational security audits including multisig configuration and infrastructure reviews, and builds policy and compliance infrastructure specifically for stablecoin projects. Isaac is also a founding member and initiative lead at the Security Alliance (SEAL), an industry group of top researchers, auditors, developers, and lawyers working together to improve the security landscape of web3. Isaac brings a rare mix of technical insight and human awareness to Web3, exploring how culture, design, and attention failures shape the vulnerabilities of DAOs. The conversation dives into topics like proof of inattention, optimistic governance, and the hidden power of dispute resolution. Isaac shares stories from his work in white-hat hacking, DAO roasts, and wargaming—real-world simulations that help protocols identify weak points before hackers do. He also explains why paranoia is healthy in crypto, why multi-sigs often fail from social engineering rather than code, and how simple practices can drastically reduce risk. The episode closes with reflections on AI, security culture, and why the future of governance may look a lot like the past—council-driven, human-centered, and built on trust. Security Alliance (SEAL): https://www.securityalliance.org/ SEAL Frameworks: https://www.securityalliance.org/frameworks Wargames: https://www.securityalliance.org/wargames NounsDAO: https://nouns.wtf/ Timestamps: 00:00 – Cold start 00:56 – Introduction: Jamilya and Eugene welcome Isaac Patka 03:06 – Why everyone eventually gets phished: real-world hacks and human error 05:23 – The growing attack surface in decentralized ecosystems 07:42 – The birth of DAO Roasts: fact-checking decentralization claims 10:04 – NounsDAO and the challenge of decentralization with veto power 12:23 – White-hat hacking: testing governance systems responsibly 14:48 – Defining white-hat vs. gray-hat ethics in crypto 17:07 – How security gray zones blur the line between defense and offense 19:24 – The LampDAO experiment: voting to turn a real-world light on and off 21:47 – DAO governance meets physical reality and off-chain limits 24:07 – “Proof of inattention” as a governance failure mode 26:31 – Delegates, fatigue, and the limits of direct democracy 28:54 – Why most voters copy trusted delegates without understanding proposals 31:15 – Guardrails and veto power: trade-offs in optimistic governance 33:36 – The real locus of power: dispute resolution and enforcement 35:55 – The origins of Security Alliance and the birth of WarGames 38:16 – Simulating incidents: chaos drills for DeFi protocols 40:42 – Threat modeling: finding vulnerabilities beyond smart contracts 43:01 – SEAL-911: the crypto emergency hotline 45:17 – Human trust in automated systems: staking and delegation 47:39 – Why protocols still underestimate operational risks 50:06 – Security culture: humans all the way down 52:30 – Paranoia as a governance virtue 54:51 – Practical safeguards: how to verify urgent messages and avoid scams 56:54 – AI in governance: new attack surfaces and security implications 59:19 – Overwarning fatigue and the limits of “Accept risk and sign” popups 01:01:35 – Access control and permission boundaries in multisigs 01:03:52 – How to stay safe: real-world scams and social engineering examples 01:08:34 – Long cons, fake grants, and deepfakes in the crypto world 01:12:59 – Vigilance without paranoia: staying human in security 01:15:22 – Physical safety, seed phrases, and low-profile best practices 01:17:43 – Crypto conferences, travel safety, and not standing out 01:19:59 – Security frameworks and starting points for learning 01:22:24 – What DAOs should fix first: access control 01:22:59 – Why decentralization is the most misused word in Web3 01:23:36 – The future of governance: humans, councils, and lessons from the past 01:24:15 – Closing thanks and outro

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

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Amber Case (Cyborg Anthropologist), technologist, author, and founder of the Calm Technology Institute. Case explores how humans and technology co-evolve — a field she helped pioneer as one of the world’s leading voices in cyborg anthropology. The conversation dives into lessons from Case’s DAO Game, a simulation designed to help communities stress-test governance systems before launching. Drawing from Case's work on Calm Technology, Case explains why governance must account for human limits, how inclusive design mirrors ancient rituals, and why “design is governance.” The episode explores patterns in community behavior — from country clubs to DAOs — revealing that while tools change, human coordination remains timeless. Case closes with reflections on AI, collective learning, and why the future of governance might just look a lot like the past. Some of the materials we mention in the episode: - An Illustrated Dictionary of Cyborg Anthropology (PDF) - https://caseorganic.gumroad.com/l/anthropdf Design is governance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clxm5qW3pao&t=1s Calm Governance - https://www.calmtech.institute/

- Design is governance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clxm5qW3pao&t=1s - Calm Governance - https://www.calmtech.institute/

Timestamps:

00:00 – Cold Start

00:56 – Introduction: Jamilya and Eugene reflect on their conversation with Amber Case

02:23 – First impressions: cyborg anthropology and governance

04:15 – What is cyborg anthropology? Humans, tech, and adaptation

06:14 – The birth of wikis and the evolution of online collaboration

08:38 – Wiki culture, editing systems, and governance through software

11:06 – Invisible governance: how online communities self-organize

13:32 – Digital identity, hyper-sigils, and the self in online life

15:11 – Simulating governance: why Case built the DAO Game

17:34 – How DAO Game helps players experience governance dynamics

19:12 – Why every DAO should test its governance as a game

20:13 – Governance as a marathon: lessons from boardrooms to DAOs

22:41 – What really happens behind the scenes of board governance

25:02 – Rituals, trust, and the hidden rules of community participation

27:24 – Old wisdom in new systems: lessons from Ostrom and co-ops

29:49 – Origins of “DAO” and the automation of home systems

31:58 – Are DAOs just repeating human governance patterns?

33:55 – Design is governance: how architecture shapes participation

36:21 – Inclusive vs. exclusive design and the myth of openness

38:45 – Entropy, ecosystems, and why good governance reduces chaos

41:02 – Boundaries, belonging, and the emotional work of inclusion

42:55 – How to handle community tensions and exclusivity

44:54 – Measuring vibes: Case’s 60-point community scoring system

48:21 – Reducing entropy through shared rituals and space design

50:44 – Training community members and fostering stewardship

53:07 – Recognizing creativity, humility, and contribution

55:34 – Legos, learning, and what makes great collaborators

57:18 – The social awareness matrix: identifying healthy dynamics

59:36 – Group design, collaboration, and cultural literacy

01:02:26 – The politics of cleanliness, care, and invisible labor

01:05:39 – The Phoenix Project: bottlenecks, burnout, and learning loops

01:08:49 – Calm Technology and AI: using minimal tech for maximum care

01:10:56 – Why messy spaces produce creativity and innovation

01:13:14 – Final reflections and the rapid-fire governance quiz

01:14:18 – One-word quiz: Constraint, History, Sobriety, Past

01:15:30 – Closing thoughts and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Seth Frey, computational social scientist and researcher of governance, common pool resources, and online communities. Seth brings insights from years of studying how people self-organize — from Minecraft servers to DAOs — and explores what digital communities can learn from Ostrom’s theories of commons management. The conversation covers the roots of governance in human behavior, why DAOs struggle not from a lack of tools but from a lack of community managers, and why decentralization without culture leads to chaos. Seth shares lessons from online systems like Minecraft and Reddit, reflects on the balance between centralization and decentralization, and discusses how “off-chain” culture and human development are the true frontiers of Web3 governance. The episode closes with his one-word vision for governance: Scaling Local.

Some of the materials we mention in the episode: Online communities as model systems for commons governance- https://enfascination.com/weblog/post/2907

Timestamps

00:00 – Cold start

01:00 – Introduction: Hosts reflect on their conversation with Seth

04:25 – Overview of Seth’s work on governance and common pool resources

05:57 – Parallels between traditional and digital commons

08:11 – Applying Ostrom’s framework to digital resources

10:11 – The Ostroms’ contribution: self-organization beyond market and state

12:34 – Eleanor Ostrom’s legacy and early research journey

14:35 – Defining common resources in Web3: attention and computational limits

15:42 – Lag, attention, and other finite digital resources

18:02 – What Minecraft communities teach us about self-governance

20:00 – Bureaucracy and creativity in online worlds

22:26 – Rules as history lessons vs. proactive governance

24:11 – From informal play to formal systems: emergent order in communities

26:20 – How users invented governance in Minecraft

28:34 – Human motivation in governance: enthusiasm vs. apathy

30:43 – When democracy is appropriate — earning participation

33:02 – The problem with solving problems you don’t yet have

34:53 – Benevolent dictatorships and transitions to community management

37:02 – Why communities resist picking up the ball of participation

39:21 – Learning from lived experience, not ideology

41:03 – Off-chain culture, vibes, and the role of community managers

43:11 – Building strong community culture as a governance project

45:12 – The science of vibes and sustaining good culture

47:15 – Redefining decentralization and polycentric governance

49:36 – Power, purity, and the myth of total decentralization

51:30 – Bureaucracy as fairness and human-centered governance

53:29 – Training people to govern: developing human capacity

55:30 – Technology vs. people — garbage in, garbage out

56:20 – Leadership’s paradox: top-down democracy building

58:37 – Standardizing culture without killing diversity

01:00:48 – Polycentric systems: designing top-down and bottom-up balance

01:03:02 – AI in governance: developmental, not managerial

01:05:26 – AI as a tool for training future human governors

01:07:24 – One-word quiz: Inspiration, Futility, Off-chain, Scaling Local

01:14:19 – Closing reflections and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Mike Cooper. Mike Cooper is an experienced social scientist with 17 years of leadership in impact strategy and measurement for numerous multilateral, bilateral, and other social impact groups, including the World Bank, various UN agencies, USAID, FCDO, MCC, and others. He specializes in the curation and use of evidence for decision-making in decentralized systems. He is currently working with Metagov on creating standards for impact planning and measurement. Mike brings his background in international development to the challenges of Web3, exploring how impact should be defined, measured, and planned for in decentralized ecosystems. The conversation covers the culture of Web3 grant programs, the pitfalls of vanity metrics, and why problem definition must come before funding solutions. Mike shares insights on how decentralization does (and doesn’t) correlate with impact, the importance of creating an “evidence commons” for governance experiments, and lessons Web3 can learn from commons management and collective action models. The episode closes with Mike’s one-word vision for governance: variety. Timestamps: 00:00 – Introduction and hosts’ reflections on Web3 grants 04:52 – Mike’s background in international development and impact framing 07:13 – Defining impact: problems, strategies, and measurement 10:24 – Grants as marketing vs. solving real problems 12:36 – Web3’s potential as a transformational tool for social impact 14:14 – Lessons from decentralization in international development 16:22 – Culture of Web3 grants and gaps in transparency 18:05 – Comparing Web3 grants with traditional gold standards 20:23 – Emerging standards and the role of Metagov’s Grant Impact Handbook 22:04 – Why decentralization doesn’t guarantee impact 23:41 – Governance paralysis, inefficiencies, and planning gaps 25:36 – Performative decentralization vs. honest centralization 27:32 – Experimentation, evidence, and governance design 29:58 – Outputs vs. outcomes vs. impact 34:08 – Network growth vanity metrics and flawed assumptions 36:23 – Problem definition as the foundation for impact 38:04 – Measuring long-term impact and sustainability of projects 40:00 – Developing the Grant Impact Handbook 42:25 – AI, mechanisms, and knowledge translation in grant governance 44:01 – Mechanism libraries and evidence standards 46:24 – Building an evidence commons for Web3 50:12 – Cultural and organizational hurdles to adopting evidence use 52:11 – Incentives for grantees and grant programs 54:29 – Funding pressures and bull/bear market dynamics 56:26 – Leadership, hierarchy, and who drives impact culture 58:44 – Capital allocation’s role in ecosystem success 01:00:12 – Learning from mistakes and failure festivals 01:02:12 – The case for an evidence commons in Web3 01:05:50 – Champions, culture, and incentives for evidence use 01:08:14 – Toward performance standards and shared learnings 01:10:11 – Quiz: commons, principles, decentralization, variety 01:11:12 – Closing thanks and outro

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Jen, DAO Comms Lead at Lido, about the launch of Lido’s dual governance model.

Jen shares her journey into governance, her perspective on decentralization, and how Lido is addressing value alignment between token holders and stETH users.

The conversation explores how dual governance gives stETH holders veto power, the role of delegate incentives, and the challenges of combining technical complexity with inclusive participation.

Jen also reflects on Vitalik’s call to “burn down” legitimacy, why governance should evolve instead, and how clarity matters more than total transparency.

The episode closes with a rapid-fire quiz, where Jen sums up the future of governance in one word: adaptability.

Some of the materials we mention in the episode: Dual Governance at Lido: https://x.com/TariQuin/status/1941154197870915950 Vitalik recently said: https://youtu.be/pPZZ25qSprY?feature=shared&t=1590

Timestamps: 00:00 – Cold Start

00:54 – Introduction and reflections on Lido governance

04:46 – Jen’s path into governance and joining Lido DAO

07:08 – Defining decentralization and Lido’s approach

10:11 – Times Square billboard and dual governance announcement

12:47 – Lido’s governance process before dual governance

14:34 – Delegate incentive program and oversight committee

18:18 – Governance as work: paying for delegate contributions

19:30 – Dual governance explained: stETH holders’ right to exit

23:27 – Safeguards, vetoes, and community alignment

25:08 – LDO vs. stETH holders: reactions to dual governance

29:12 – Governance expertise, DAO challenges, and delegate roles

31:53 – Why governance should serve the product, not dominate it

35:59 – Technical complexity and the need for education

40:24 – Committees, mandates, and decentralization trade-offs

43:39 – Balancing operations, transparency, and security

48:34 – The role of AI in governance clarity and summaries

52:12 – Legitimacy, Vitalik’s critique, and evolving governance

58:03 – Tokens, utility, and the uniqueness of DAOs

59:57 – Research priorities: defining the scope of DAO governance

01:05:46 – One-word quiz: decentralization, governance, adaptability

In this episode of Governance Futures, hosts Jamilya and Eugene speak with Puja Ohlhaver about her latest paper on community currencies and the PCARE model. She explains how her work builds on earlier frameworks, critiques one-token-one-vote models, and offers new approaches for balancing money, votes, attention, and influence. Puja Ohlhaver is a lawyer, technologist, and innovator focused on renovating democracy to resist authoritarian drift in the age of AI. As a member of Harvard’s GETTING-Plurality Research Group at the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation, her work bridges law, economics, and computation to build pluralistic governance that empowers communities to rapidly scale cooperation across networks without succumbing to surveillance. Her most recent work explores how community currencies can rebalance attention and influence to amplify collective voices within frontier AI models, while hardening systems against both capture and overreach. Ohlhaver co-authored Decentralized Society: Finding Web3’s Soul with Glen Weyl and Vitalik Buterin. Her commentary has appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, WIRED, and Time Magazine. The conversation dives into the economic and political theory behind PCARE, its potential role in reconciling financial and non-financial commitments, and how subsidiarity and plurality can foster healthier governance systems. Puja also shares perspectives on the role of AI, digital reputation, and why legitimacy must be rooted in local communities while still enabling global cooperation. The episode closes with her vision for the future of governance in one word: plurality. Some of the materials we mention in the episode: - Ohlhaver, Puja and Nikulin, Mikhail and Berman, Paula, Compressed to 0: The Silent Strings of Proof of Personhood (March 6, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4749892 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4749892 - Ohlhaver, P. (2024, October 1). Common Knowledge Machines: From Community Notes to Community Posts. Substack. https://pujaohlhaver.substack.com/p/common-knowledge-machines - Ohlhaver, Puja, Community Currencies: The Price Of Attention And Cost Of Influence In A Networked Age -or-The Price Of Entry And Cost Of Exit In A Networked Age (January 02, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5136037 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5136037 - Ohlhaver, P. [deep dives w/thefett]. (2024, September 30). Community currencies and PCARE with Puja Ohlhaver [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpt8PBWgdRw - Ohlhaver, P. (2024, October 15). Why community currencies are crucial for governance in DeSoc (Ep. 588) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRnYj_4GQHs

Timestamps 00:00 – Teaser/Preview 01:11 – Introduction and hosts’ reflections on Puja’s paper 04:46 – Puja’s personal, political, and economic motivations for community work 09:09 – AI, crypto, and decentralization beyond state power 11:31 – Community posts, discourse, and polarization online 18:04 – From Soulbound Tokens to community currencies: evolution of ideas 25:52 – Incentive alignment, liquefaction, and empty voting critiques 30:08 – Attention, influence, and the theory of power in networks 34:27 – Pareto’s law and the dangers of one-token-one-vote 40:21 – How PCARE introduces trade-offs between money and voting 44:37 – Why irrevocable stake matters for influence 48:55 – Subsidiarity, plurality, and justice in community currency design 53:05 – Community-based income and social recombination 57:22 – Enforcement, bribery, coercion, and community governance 01:01:10 – AI, neural networks, and identity as a networked self 01:06:30 – Reputation, relational context, and bridging communities 01:12:14 – Global vs. local currencies and legitimacy in communities 01:17:18 – Locality, legitimacy, and reorienting away from anti-social media 01:21:09 – Future experiments: civil society, social media, and music communities 01:25:12 – Where community currencies could start in practice 01:27:52 – Closing reflections before the one-word quiz 01:33:04 – One-word quiz: trust, plurality, and the future of governance 01:34:11 – Outro