Company Name: Beefy THE Multichain Yield Optimizer Total Prize Pool For All Bounties: $5000 Bounty #1: Most interesting use of Beefy vaults in a project Beefy vaults are interest-bearing tokens and can be used as money legos. Create an exciting project that builds on top of Beefy. Bounty Prize Amount(s): 1st prize: 2,500 2nd prize: 1,500 3rd prize: 1,000 Requirements: Any working dApp which interacts with Beefy vaults. Resources: https://beefy.com/ https://docs.beefy.finance/ecosystem/products/vaults https://github.com/beefyfinance/beefy-contracts Judging Criteria: Innovation Originality Code quality

Company Name: Āut Protocol Native, role-based membership & governance for DAOs. Total Prize Pool For All Bounties: $5,000 Bounty #1: Add a new DAO Standard Examples of DAO Standards are the Moloch contracts (you can see an example in our repo). Add and Integrate a new DAO standard in the Āut repo, so that our protocol can expand it. Choose your favorite DAO standard, build a MembershipChecker following the tutorial and write tests for it! There are two (2) prizes for this challenge, each of 1000 USD(C) - so potentially you can compete for both, as long as you provide two (2) different (and functional) solutions. Standards that we would like to see submitted (and we will prioritize) are: Colony DAOStack Aragon" Bounty Prize Amount(s): 2 equal prizes of 1000 USDC per successful solution Requirements: A well described pull request to the aut protocol repository. One must be able to integrate an existing DAO of the chosen standard and the membership checker should work accordingly. Well written tests for your work. The contract must work. Resources: Tutorial: https://docs.aut.id/v2/protocol/add-a-new-standard/add-new-dao-type Repo: https://github.com/Aut-Protocol/contracts/ General Docs: https://docs.aut.id Judging Criteria: Good code quality and functional contract Bounty #2: Use Āut for your DAO + DApp This goes to projects using one or more of āut products for the DAO + DApp. We're mainly interested in Creative DApps (i.e.: Art, Music, Poetry, ...) or Public Goods DApps (i.e.: ReFi, NGOs, governance, ...). Functional uses of Āut we will consider are: use āutID for Social Profiles, community analytics or role-based membership use dĀut decentralized authentication system for your DApp/Platform's login use Āut Dashboard + Āut bot for role-based community activities such as gatherings (calls) and voting routines (polls). Bounty Prize Amount(s): 1st prize: 1500 2nd prize: 1000 3rd prize: 500 Requirements: join Āut Hacker DAO & claim your ĀutID expand your new DAO with Āut, and give it the name of your project use at least one of the products in our product suite (āutID, dĀut, Dashboard) functionally in your DApp the integration needs to be functional and well described Resources: Join HackerDAO: https://autprotocol.notion.site/Hackers-Onboarding-7b9ff1613a2946d1a65810c7d693149e General Docs: https://docs.aut.id Āut Expansion: https://docs.aut.id/v2/product-suite/aut-exp. dĀut: https://docs.aut.id/v2/product-suite/daut Āut Dashboard: https://docs.aut.id/v2/product-suite/autboard ĀutID: https://docs.aut.id/v2/product-suite/my-autid Judging Criteria: Creativity and innovation of the solution: how unique is it? Technical value of the solution: how hard is it? Feasibility: how viable and scalable is it? Impact: how much value does it bring to your users/category/stakeholders? Completion: how refined and functional is the final delivery?

Se trataría de inventar prácticas de contra-diseño que puedan mantener un compromiso duradero con proyectos de vida politizados. ¿Podrá la educación del diseño cumplir esta misión? Los conocimientos académicos, fundados bajo el imperativo firme de la separación del mundo natural, parecieran ser completamente incompetentes para proveernos con los conocimientos en sintonía con la Tierra necesarios para que los humanos funcionemos acoplados con ella. Tampoco parecen ser capaces de acoger los conocimientos lugarizados y vernáculos de las culturas que se rehúsan a rendirse al mundo globalizado, manteniendo su sabiduría del habitar y de enraizar sus mundos.

Los escenarios adquieren un doble carácter: se basan en la innovación social y también tienen la intención de crear las condiciones para la innovación social. El resultado es «una ecología de encuentros colaborativos» (Manzini 2015: 118); en este contexto la sociedad se convierte en «un laboratorio de nuevas formas de ser y de hacer»

el surgimiento de una nueva cultura de diseño a partir de su superposición y convergencia en lugares y situaciones específicos. El objetivo de esta nueva cultura es la construcción de una nueva ecología de lugares y regiones,

La acústica une forma y evento, convocando a un replanteamiento de la relación entre proceso, diseño y materialidad.

Las rupturas son momentos en los que se interrumpe el modo habitual de ser-en-el-mundo; cuando ocurre una descomposición de este tipo nuestras prácticas consuetudinarias y el papel de nuestras herramientas en su mantenimiento quedan expuestas y aparecen nuevas soluciones de diseño;

Sharingexpertiseisalsotheethosofhackingevents,whicharenotonlyforumsorganizedbyandforactivistsbutnowcommonlybygovernmentsandcorporations.Thesamecanbesaidofactionsthatinvolvecollectiveproblemsolvingasmodesofsharingone’slabour,skills,anddatathroughinitiativessuchasthecitizenscienceprojectsofZooniverseor,incontrast,Amazon’sMechanicalTurk.[55]However,likeotherone-to-manysharingplatforms,thesearealsoorganizedondifferentprinciples.GalaxyZooandsimilarformsofcitizenscienceinvolvedonationsofvoluntarylabourforusuallybroaderpublicgoodsandobjectives.

How might civic hackathons be improved? Balsamo does not deny contradictory influences exist in these spaces nor avoid engaging because they are “neoliberalist.” Rather, she suggests that sites of messy innovation are also potential sites of learning. Accordingly, my hope is that civic hackathons might be treated more seriously as moments for education and public engagement around the politics of technology. This can be a radical notion because culture, narratives, myths, rituals, expressions, and knowledge might still be reworked.

Put slightly differently, if we want civic hackathons to produce ideas that improve society, we need to more deeply and sincerely shape choices, thought processes, and activities that might make technology civic.

Balsamo's notion of technocultural innovation is quite appropriate for negotiating between critical and design positions on hackathons. First, she defines technologies asmessy combinations of practices, materialities, and affordances. They were never fully captured in artifacts to begin with, and she would simply not regard civic hackathons as their sole point of emergence. Second, although designers hold a particular role in technocultural innovation, Balsamo makes it clear that everyday people can interact with, talk about, act out, and pitch ideas, thereby co-constructing technologies. Many of the examples she provides, such as interactive museum exhibitions, are very hackathon-esque spectacles that bring people into contact with technologies in the process of being designed. Third, Balsamo provides concepts and vocabulary for describing moments of collective design. Cultural models of technology might be reproduced or made anew through the technocultural imagination. Balsamo does not treat the influence of corporations or mythologies of technology (Balsamo, 1996)as necessarily spoiling innovation. Individuals all draw on specific models of technology — practices, affordances, materialities — from everyday life, which must include those created by large companies. Participants can get space of their own, as in the case of Xerox PARC’s RED group, that provide autonomy. Yet, they do not exactly get outside of technology, a point that McKenzie Wark has similarly driven home (Wark, 2004).

Innovation always occurs against a larger social and cultural backdrop because "all participants [in collective design] bring gendered, racial, and class-based assumptions to the designing process" (p. 37). Diversity in collective design may helpindividuals imagine better together, as we all bring different assumptions about technology.

that civic hackathons are highly fluid and contested spaces where power is negotiated. However, critical and design perspectives clearly differ on the theorized relationship between civic participation and technology. The imposed civic ideology perspective tells us high technology corporations force an essentially bogus ideology on the event. Participants

Simply diversifying participantion is no guarantee that outcomes benefit diverse communities, and declaring an event civically important does not make it so. After years of participating in and running civic hackathons I noticed a new turn. This new type of civic hackathon was intentionally run to foster performance, spectacle, and communicative activities around a loose shell of technology-oriented activities. Technology became more talked about than materially captured.

In Are Civic Hackathons Stupid? Emily Badger noted how government officials expected too much of civic hackathons, which rarely produced the expected technology that can be scaled to different sites. They required resources and labor to run, which could lead to burnout. Still, she was reluctant to entirely write them off. Some problems needed local solutions and civic hackathons could “bring officials and residents together in a context that has nothing to do with paying parking tickets or reporting potholes, and in a format that appeals to people who would never turn up for a public meeting.”

Initially at least, civic hackathons were initially positioned as a form of public outreach for civic hackers, a loose-knit community interested in applying technology for social good. James Crabtree (2007) defined “civic hacking” as “the development of applications to allow mutual aid among citizens rather than through the state.” In particular, he suggested an extra-institutional definition, thatcivic hacking filled in where e-democracy had failed. The meaning of “civic” at this stage leaned towards a libertarian perspective, which remains a persistent critique of hacking among critical studies scholars (Golumbia, 2013).

Civic hackathons are spaces where the technological imagination and civic imagination collide and jostle as people collectively envision future technologies. Finally, I suggest three lessons drawn from civic hackathons to demonstrate the contradictory and even treacherous ways civic innovation produces ideas. In the conclusion I consider how we might read civic hackathons alongside other modern political formations. After all, civic hackathons are just one part in a larger formation of “open government” that prioritizes direct participation and institutional collaboration as a pathway to reform.

The two perspectives are also not mutually exclusive — a participant might be frustrated at the rushed, corporatized nature of a certain civic hackathon and come to explore ideas about improving civic life.

Civic hackathons have been hotly debated in recent years. Critical studies scholars have lambasted civic hackathons for aligning with middle-class citizenship(Irani, 2015)and co-opting participant labor (Gregg, 2014a). Silicon Valley is often the fait accompliin these perspectives, bringing a flawed ideology that seduces organizers and participants into transposing technological language onto civic issues (Also see: Barbrook & Cameron, 1996; Morozov, 2013). In this paper I refer to this perspective as an “imposed civic ideology.” The second perspective comes from design scholars interested in material participation (Marres, 2012) as cohering publics to work on particular social issues. Lodato and DiSalvo (2016) suggested that civic hackathons served two purposes. First, they help people think through civic issues using props — “objects, services, and systems that engage with issues” (p. 16). Second, they cohere ephemeral proto-publics for short-term engagement on issues of public concern. As they summarized, "what is important is not the inventiveness of a particular prototype product or service, but rather, how the event fosters opportunities for collaborative or collective issue articulation" (p. 15). They drew attention to how outcomes of civic hackathons may more likely be social and cultural than functional material objects. I refer to this design perspective as an “emergent civic subjectivity.”

Critiques have emerged over how these prototypes are rarely effective or adopted in addressing the very problems they inspire. Thomas Lodato and Carl DiSalvo suggest that this disillusionment stems from a misunderstanding of the process and outcomes of hackathons. They argue that issue-oriented hackathons create “props”—material tools for thinking through issues—and cohere “proto-publics” through material participation. These implicit outcomes appear almost in spite of their explicit format and goals. Hackathons therefore provide the ability to articulate issues of shared concern and col-lectively work towards alleviating social issues.

The public has become aware of the popularization of hacking and making mostly through moments of emergency and scandal. Forgetting serves a function for the public, allowing them to get on with their own interests. Concurrently, this public forgetting allows hackers to regain their spaces of creativity and action. Maker culture, too, forgets in order to find a perpetual sense of novelty in their very existence. Forgetting, an important social and cultural project, is also part of the democratic project. Democracies forget to put aside old tensions and re-form in order for the public to sup-port them.

Open data, like open information before it, promised fixes for bureaucratic problems and leveling power asymmetries (Fenster, 2012). Municipal governments strapped for funds and in dire need of more efficient frameworks have, of course, welcomed the message that open government data can alleviate time-consuming FOIA requests, make services easier for residents to use, and drive hack-athons as a form of public outreach.

This is aimed at people in the tech industry, and is more about what you can do with your career than at a hackathon. I’m not going to discuss policy and regulation, although they’re no less important than technological innovation. A good way to think about it, via Saul Griffith, is that it’s the role of technologists to create options for policy-makers.

Hack days: April 25-26, 2015