itch.io

I like the overall idea. Cross-disciplinary research like this is essential, and it's usually how many technological advances happen anyway. Nature has always been one of the best sources of inspiration for engineering.

My main feedback is that the pitch spends a lot of time on the motivation and philosophy (which is compelling), but leaves the reader with a fuzzy picture of what the system actually is. I came away understanding why you think this matters, but not with a clear sense of what you've built or are building. For example, what do the distinct regions in your network do? How do they communicate? What does the architecture look like? I'd lead with more of the Snake results, the sparse reward learning, and compute efficiency are your strongest selling points, and give us the architecture, even at a high level, so people can evaluate the technical substance alongside the vision.

Also, the cargo cult reference might not land with everyone. I might just be out of the loop, but maybe consider briefly explaining it or using a more accessible analogy.

Separate question: Are you familiar with the doom-neuron project (https://github.com/SeanCole02/doom-neuron)? They're using actual biological neurons as the compute substrate for playing Doom. Obviously, a different approach from yours, wetware vs. software-simulated brain principles, but it's in a similar orbit of bridging neuroscience and AI. Curious if you see any overlap or lessons from that work?

This is very fitting for the times we are in currently, as it is hard to find reliable sources of truth. Maybe you could collaborate with Ground News https://ground.news/ or Johnny Harris's platform https://newpress.com/. The latter is newer and probably open to developing their site.

I can send you the draft of the research paper I wrote to accompany this and/or a much more concise slide deck. And yeah, I'm currently piloting it on a popular blockchain. I received positive community feedback when proposing phase one for implementation on the forum, but they had other priorities to address within their governance initiative before I could propose it onchain. I will try to propose it within the next 2 weeks as things have finally settled down.

Good questions. This system I'm building IS version control for an organization's governance.  I'm so happy you made that connection. On the 'why': governance gets treated like a fire extinguisher, ignored and overlooked until a crisis arises. The case studies, in the research paper I wrote backing this solution (Juno's panic-driven token confiscation, Gitcoin's slow attention decay, NEAR's procedural ambiguity during transition), all share the same root cause: no structured memory between decision cycles. Contributors rotate out, taking institutional knowledge with them. New decision-makers inherit authority without knowing why past choices were made. Each GMS layer maps directly to a failure mode observed in the research.

On which organizations should use it: GMS is modular by design. The Governance Health Index diagnoses which dimensions are weak, and organizations only adopt the layers that address those weaknesses. A lightweight org might only need proposal metadata and outcome reviews. They don't have to run the full stack. The system is both diagnostic and prescriptive. The scaling path has three tiers: Stage 1 is blockchain protocols (transparent data, fast cycles, high stakes). Stage 2 is digital communities and cooperatives (housing co-ops, mutual aid networks, platform governance). Stage 3 is traditional institutions (municipal bodies, civic organizations, academic departments). Each tier introduces new constraints, especially around privacy, but the core governance primitives (proposals, votes, delegation, outcomes, power concentration) transfer across all of them.

Thanks for the feedback. The personality angle is quite interesting. I do see it being helpful when it ties to a research organization or company, but a singular personality in a more decentralized context may be harder to execute. The ecosystems have a mission, vision, and values you can base personality on, but the "how to" of achieving them becomes a point of contention (based on my personal experience). Definitely still worth exploring. Thanks again for looking over the files. I'd like to see if there are any glaring liabilities I haven't thought through. No rush when it comes to helping with the implementation, I'm patient.

This is exactly the kind of conversation I want to have! Government is on the roadmap, but understanding the constraints early (privacy requirements, decision velocities, staff turnover every election cycle) shapes how I build this. Would love to learn what specific governance pain points you're dealing with. There might be something we can do together. DM me on Discord (@Othmangba) or email OCCResearch6@gmail.com.

Yeah, it would be awesome to get connected with him. I just looked into their stuff. It definitely feeds into a few layers of my system. My telegram is @othmangba. I also left a comment on your post to further connect.

Cool pitch! Definitely some overlap with GMS. We should connect to discuss how we might work together or help each other. I wonder if your funding ask is a bit conservative, though. I also know of some online communities that may be interested in testing or implementing Virts. Would you say the ideal community to use this platform would be one that is very dynamic and hard to define, but wants to define the scope of interests they spend the most time on?

This is a bit out of my depth. I had to do further research on what you've presented.  It seems like the e31 result is important, and the experimental design backs it up. 

Main feedback: the science-to-culture connection is your most underrated strategic insight, but the pitch makes the audience work too hard to see it. Right now, the four arms read as parallel bets rather than as a single integrated thesis. You need an explicit paragraph that makes the argument for why consciousness-as-physics needs a cultural distribution layer to land. Make the reviewer see it too. That's the move that turns perceived scope creep into a strategic advantage.

Pitch is solid, I really like the who it's not for section. One thing I wish you had delved into is how you'll assess milestones or the tool's success. Are you measuring time spent on QA, how are you measuring tech debt, and do the vibe coders you want to sample have to be experienced vibe coders or noob developers that are leveraging ai. Jumping into the granularity, or providing a resource that does so, in the pitch covers your base for people who want to know more.

Awesome pitch and awesome product. I have a research paper behind my product, so I used the Demo, and it was helpful for finding further reading related to what I was working on. I do wish that you guys gave the option to list if you were a founder and researcher, maybe in the next version, but it felt like I was limiting my options by picking one. Additionally, the papers that surfaced when I wrote about what I was working on were more helpful than those that surfaced when I generated a report with a specific keyword provided. I fortunately bookmarked them, but after that, it seems almost impossible to find them once you move on to the next page. Pitch was solid overall.

Awesome, I'd greatly appreciate that, and during the review period works.

Thank you for your feedback! If you have some time, I'd like to pick your brain on some agent architecture decisions, if possible. Right now, off-chain influence will be limited to Telegram, Slack, and Discord chats. There's a tool called Telescope that asks people to consent to having what they've said documented. The KOI implementation I also mentioned can create knowledge objects for these threads and grouped statements; it should also track different reactions within chats, so it can assess how the statements were received. 

Here's the link to my pitch. Open to any and all feedback! Tear it up.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MrwlHhxjeLRhaB7F1WQaiSOtg3tHkbG4JorCYzjM-D0/...