Some thoughts on SCRF
- Connect the thinkers of crypto with the builders of crypto
To achieve this SCRF needs:
- Thinkers engaging with SCRF products
- Builders engaging with SCRF products
- A product that connects engaged builders with the appropriate thinkers or relevant research, and also serves as something that the thinker and builder and show to one another
To be interested in engaging, thinkers need:
- Recognition of their work
- Engagement with their work
- Communication of their work
- Dispersion of their work
To be interested in engaging, builders need:
- Talent to brainstorm with
- Access to relevant research
- Community to draw from
- Knowledge of the space
A connection product needs:
- Simple and rapid access
- To give the thinker something to show a builder and the builder something to think about
- To be easily consumed
The primary resource to fulfill all the needs of both thinkers and builders seems to be an open, active, vibrant, engaging community. Something like bitcointalk where ANN posts (early non-academic research) and discussions used to take place.
SCRF already fulfills many of these needs. I hope to communicate a flow on how this fulfillment might be achieved more efficiently and effectively. In the end, I think it is important to remember that community growth is necessary for this to succeed. Growing the community is a different discussion altogether.
Essentially, the flow boils down to two actors from outside of SCRF:
- Researcher - Thought about some stuff. Wants to show those thoughts to engineers and other people.
- Engineer - Built or wants to build some stuff. Wants to show those thoughts and products to, or get input from researchers and other people.
and three key players within SCRF:
- Communicators relay technical information to non-technical people. They drive excitement behind a publication. They answer “what if” and “why do I care” in engaging ways. Audio/visuals/podcasts are great formats for communicators.
- Conversationalists are the liquidity providers. Unbiased, without an opinion, but with an agenda: support discussion.
- Curators elevate quality discussion to the eye level of researchers and engineers. People who don’t live on the forum – researchers, engineers, etc – will read primarily curated discussions tied to the relevant piece of research.
and three key sections of the forum:
- Research - Writable by only researchers and engineers. Readable by all.
- Curated - Writable by researchers, engineers, communicators, and curators. Readable by all.
- Discussion - Open to everyone.
The flow might be like so:
A researcher posts research or an engineer posts a “call for research”(CFR) in the research section of the forum.
A communicator summarizes a quality piece of research or CFR in the curated section. They then create a discussion thread for that summary in the discussion section. The post in the curated section references both the post in the research section and the post in the discussion section. The post in the discussion section references the posts in the research and curated section.
A conversationalist engages the community in discussion on the discussion thread.
A curator summarizes quality discussion they think the original author of the research or CFR would want to see. They post these summaries and bullet points on the relevant thread in the curated section.
A researcher or engineer engages with the curated thread (or the discussion thread if they want, though I imagine that this would be rare).
A researcher or engineer adds highly relevant comments, edits, or notes to their own research thread, where they can also engage with interested counterparties.
A researcher walks away with their self-curated research thread and a streamlined discussion and summary of and around their work via the curation thread. They can show these products to engineers. An engineer walks away with the same threads they can show to researchers. They also have a discussion thread they can use to show public interest in their work.
Researchers and engineers engage with one another on relevant research or CFR threads.
Meanwhile, the community is encouraged to be free in the discussion section. They do not need to think about flooding a post or whether a researcher is going to read their post. They can simply say say “great research!” or “this research is pointless”, both valuable inputs to a discussion thread. They can also be friendly with one another and develop as a community by integrating themselves into their posts, all while discussing a research summary from the curated section.
Ultimately, this format enables creation of high level research discussion products while simultaneously fostering an open, growing, “bitcointalk”-esque community.