P2P/ Distributed Network Protocols

thank you. I'm not bothered about winning. I'm just putting my narrative into the ecosystem. it'smy choice, and not a demand for purple to follow a path.

thank you for your input. I appreciate it.

regards

Christopher

Cheers Chris, and please keep me in the loop with regards to any progress made in creating an open PNDHT protocol. I would definitely want to know about that - thanks!

Hi all. I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. I appreciate the technical aspect as well as the drama, as I am very intrested in the social aspects of collaboration in open networks. Moreover, the drama touches me personally because I was myself involved in it in multiple occasions.
I think Chris' style is a bit too rough. Could be personality, culture, the past experience with Holo, I don't know the guy nor the story. But I resonate with something, which is the subtil tyranny of "non violent communication", read emotionless and non-acusatory communication. I appreaciate a ton Adam's intervention. He really hit the nail in the head.
I recently wrote a piece on the subject, in reaction to a situation that I lived with Ouishare Montréal, where I was on the receiving side of the accusation of using non-appropriate language for reprimending a delinquent member for deliberatly trasngressing clear governance bounderies, afterafter having been clearly verbaly adviced not to do so by me, in two occasions. In fact, I just told this person that I will make sure to create a loss of opportunity for him in the future, within the context of the project, if he was to continue to stick around. That consequence / cost that I associated with his actions, communicated using a dry and firm tone, lead to me being the bud guy of the gang. Not the same situation like here, but now you got a bit of the context to appreciate my post and perhaps try to apply to the lessons extracted from this experience.
https://steemit.com/collaborative/@sensorica/the-la-la-land-in-small-scale-collaborative-communities

I'm very interested in your views here, @tiberiusbrastavice and in your post on steemit. I tried to reply there but my reply was eaten because I hadn't signed up yet. Do you know of anywhere that we can engage with these topics properly? I suggested this earlier but I haven't seen any ideas on this yet. How about a "Metacommunication and culture" thread on OAE? Though I would rather have a wider discussion that wasn't located just in OAE, but drew material from many places. Should I ask to start a whole new Group?

Hey, thanks so much for the words of appreciation @tiberiusbrastavice! I don't know a great deal about exactly what happened between Chris and the Holo team but I've met Chris who came to stay with us for a couple of weeks or so when I was living in Rotterdam, and also spent a week with Eric, Nico and Ray in Dortmund in October 2017. I also spent time with their director of communications, Matthew Schutte, in February of last year when he came to stay with a German friend and I over two days. My basic point of view is that they are all really amazing people doing really amazing work, but of course that doesn't necessarily make them flawless or above any criticism whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the details of what happened between Chris and the Holochain team his criticism of their failure to draw a clear distinction between the PNDHT and the Holochain-specific framework stands on its own merits and @pauldaoust1 (a current Holochain team developer who has been in conversation with co-founder Art Brock) has admitted as much, thanked Chris for making clear this distinction, and promised to try to make this distinction clearer (whilst also defending the Holochain team's chosen priority of developing the framework).

However, it also needs to be pointed out that it is Art and Eric who came up with the design for the PNDHT and all of the software is open-source, so they deserve to be credited with coming up with those ideas and it needs to be pointed out that they have only delayed the practical utilization of their own ideas, not anybody else's. As regards their decision to prioritise work on the framework over work on the protocol I think that Chris is entitled to criticise them for making this their priority upon the basis that it delays the take-up of agent-centric computing, but not to condemn them, as such, since they are surely entitled to make the framework their priority if they wish [but that's because I don't attribute selfish motivations to them in the way that he does].

What I do think is unacceptable is for them to knowingly fail to make the distinction between the two or to acknowledge that any such decision has been made. People like myself who have been following and supporting Holochain primarily because we like the idea of agent-centric computing surely deserve to be told that and to find out, so late in the day, that that information was withheld (for whatever reason) does undermine trust a little. But @pauldaoust1 has expressed his wish to rectify that and deserves praise for that, and encouragement to motivate him to make good on his pledge (which he is unlikely to have if he feels that he's going to be under-attack whatever he says or does). The problem that I have with Chris with not giving Paul his due for his, IMO, open and non-defensive responses is 45% (approx) because I think that Paul deserves credit for that but 55% (approx) because having Paul publishing something that make clear the distinction between the protocol and the framework would be a hugely meaningful outcome from all of this that would fully justify all of the effort that Chris has put in to creating the Prezi and all of the rest, that he is endangering when he remains on the attack no-matter-what-paul-says-or-does [or so it looks to me, and I suspect him]. The fact of the matter is that Eric and Art aren't going to suddenly do an about-turn and say "Hey Chris, we've been thinking things through and have decided that you were right all along - let's halt work on the Holochain framework and simply create an open and federated PNDHT that anyone can use and get this agent-centric computing idea off the ground before we start thinking about anything else!" That just simply isn't-going-to-happen and Chris surely knows that. And so the pragmatist in me thinks "Okay, well what's the next best thing." And the next best thing is surely that Holochain:

1) acknowledge the distinction between the two [the protocol and the framework],

2) acknowledge that a choice has been made [to give priority to developing a Holochain framework over an open PNDHT protocol],

3) gives their community of agent-centric computing enthusiasts the opportunity to support the development of an open PNDHT protocol as well or instead of Holochain if they so wish [by letting them know about the fork of Holochain that Chris says he helped to get funding for - and please tell us more about that @christopher7 together with links and documents, if you would].

So let's please try to get to that happy outcome in which everyone's a winner, and please join me in helping to get us there @tiberiusbrastavice by offering @pauldaoust1 some support and encouragement to do the things that he's said he'll do. I would greatly appreciate that! :-)

Thank you @adamwaterhouse for processing these technically and socially complex subjects so deeply and carefully. That's a great service to everyone. :)

My bit of sharing: I don't fully understand your apparent perception that Art, Eric and/or the Holochain team have failed to responsibly communicate something crucial about the relationship between a "PNDHT" and the Holochain project, with its several systems including their crowdfunding campaign, Holochain app, ICO, Holo platform, Holo Fuel etcetera.

As an 'outsider', I perceive that the Holochain team is trying to develop a small but significant number of related computing systems which seem mutually necessary, to them, to ensure that truly distributed computing actually happens.

We could debate the necessity of each of Holochain's temporary systems-- such as the crowdfunding campaign-- and each persistently related system, such as the Holochain app and Holo platform. Regardless of such debates, it's certainly true that each persistently-related system would not need to be developed by the same team! However, relationships between dev teams are hard to coordinate. IMO, truly distributed computing might be greatly delayed-- or might never happen at all, due to global calamities-- if one or more related systems fails to functionally emerge.

Most software development & support is unnecessarily centralized, but that's sometimes for practical reasons. Teams often feel the need to reserve as much autonomy as possible, based on personal relationships. Of course, the Holochain team must repeatedly answer to a global community for every design decision and goal which they centralize. They're currently focusing on several related systems, including an open source Holochain app which could be used & forked with or without using the Holo platform or Fuel. BTW, by focusing on an open source app instead of a separately available protocol, I think they are… well, they're simply doing what the vast majority of dev teams do, to foster their creative autonomy & sustainability.

My key related perceptions:

• It has seemed self-evident to me (in Holochain media) that Holochain is intentionally prioritizing several related distributed computing systems, instead of just making the Holochain app or a more-basic protocol.
• It's never seemed important to me for the Holochain team to conspicuously point out that less-centralized approaches could be pursued.
• I haven't seen any evidence that they've suppressed alternate perspectives, or stated untruths about their design choices and goals.

Of course, if the Holochain team ever denied that a less-centralized approach is possible-- or unfairly criticized the feasibility of a specific less-centralized approach-- then I'd want to know.

Thanks again Adam, and anyone else who reads this, for valuable dialogue.

Hi @adamwaterhouse -- I'm not going to be able to honour this very detailed message with a very detailed response right now; got some obligations. I really appreciate you laying out some specific requests, and for being so supportive. Last week was quite draining for me, so I'm glad to see my presence was helpful.

A few want to see some specific responses, so I'm going to try to figure out the best format.

Realistically, I don't have time this week; please remind me if you don't see hide or hair of me by the end of next. One thing I want to mention before I leave though:

What I do think is unacceptable is for them to knowingly fail to make the distinction between the two or to acknowledge that any such decision has been made.

Given Arthur's no-red-flags feedback on my first post (where I first detailed my dawning awareness of the protocol/platform distinction), I think this is reflective of my evolving understanding than of any lack of candour on his or Eric's part. He's not stingy with his feedback, so he woulda called me out if I were being indiscreet or inaccurate.

That said, now that I've got a clearer picture, I'm definitely going to start making the distinction clearer. Sounds like you think it'd be valuable. I'm one of the first people developers talk to when they want to know more about Holochain, so this is good feedback for me to take in.

Hi @gregorycassel, thanks for your response. I do think that it is open to interpretation as to whether or not the Holochain team have failed to communicate something of importance to the broader Holochain community. I guess it ultimately comes down to what standards you are holding them too. I personally think that it is entirely legitimate to hold them to very high standards of openness and transparency given that they claim such standards for themselves. I would guess that the average dev team doesn't make the types of claims about their commitment to openness and transparency that the Holochain team does.

It has certainly come as news to me that agent-centric computing could be implemented using the protocol in conjunction with existing software ecosystems (Wordpress, Python, etc) in the way that Chris describes; and it is certainly true, as far as I'm concerned, that agent-centric computing was a very key part of their core message and selling point. And so by focusing on the framework and neglecting to work on the protocol whilst failing to:

1) clearly articulate the difference between the two

2) explain that a choice had been made not-to-go-all-out-for-agent-centric-computing-by-any-means-possible but rather focus on building the framework that would allow them to implement the bigger MetaCurrency Project vision , and

3) provide an explanation for the reasons for that decision, including a good faith weighing up of the pros and cons of each option

a breach of trust of some description has occurred, in my opinion.

Again, I agree with you that they probably haven't acted any differently from a normal dev team, but they are not a normal dev team. They make big on their commitment to their community and on their commitment to complete openness and transparency. They requested and received crowdfunding from their community of supporters [who purchased Holo boxes up-front through Indigogo] upon the basis of such promises - people like me who parted with our money upon the basis of such commitments - which allowed them to go on to raise a very considerable amount of money through their ICO [of course, it is also testimony to the intelligence of Art and Eric and the whole team that they have been so successful]. Am I not entitled to feel a little disappointed that such matters were not explained to me as clearly as they could be?

I personally think of Art and Eric are two of the most extraordinary human beings alive on planet Earth today and Matthew is just the nicest person, but-that-is-precisely-why-I-feel-a-bit-let-down learning this information so late in the day. However, I am not attributing any bad motivations to them. I get that they are juggling lots of commitments and competing priorities. Furthermore, and most importantly, I-think-that-I-understand-the-context. Chris, validly I believe, criticizes them for making big on agent-centric computing in their public-facing communications but not communicating the information that he has shared here and which Paul has corroborated. However, he wasn't just criticising them - as I am - for not articulating that decision to the community. He was and is harshly criticising them for the decision itself. That's where I part company with Chris because I think that they are fully entitled to set their own priorities, and do not believe that Chris is entitled to demand of them that they should make his priorities their own. My request of them is a far more modest one - simply that they communicate this information, the decision made and the reasons for that decision (points 1, 2 and 3 above) to their supporters like myself.

As far as I am aware Chris didn't ever think to make that request of them as a stand-alone request. I wish he had. I wish that he had come to the realization that he wasn't going to persuade them of his point of view and said: "Hey guys, we're never going to agree on this one and I guess that we're going to have to go our separate ways, but could you at least publicly acknowledge to the Holochain community the points I'm making you know to be true as part of your commitment to openness and transparency." I personally think that they may well have agreed to that and, further, also think that it would have created a win-win-win outcome:

1) A win for the Holochain community who would possess a greater understanding of such matters and have the choice of supporting other projects creating agent-centric computing using PNDHT + Wordpress/Python, etc, such as Chris is working with in addition to continuing to support Holochain [and I would like to support both in some form - why not?]

2) A win for agent-centric computing and the concept of the PNDHT as we would have all gotten to watch it being implemented in a variety of ways

3) A win for Holochain itself who would have gotten plenty of credit for their initial design of PNDHT and probably attract more interest in Holochain and more people wanting to use it [with all of the additional functionalities that it can offer] as a result of the success of other varients of PNDHT agent-centric computing.

Well, it didn't happen like that I guess; but I still think that we can get there retrospectively with the help of @pauldaoust1 and that's what I'm hoping for! :-)

Dear Adam,

My exact point is that I did, very explicitly point out all of these issues with the code base, in great detail, in documents, at the time. I have been quite clear about that. People dont want to hear it. This, combined with the impossibility of bullying people in my immediate circle, are the two reasons that Holo secretly stopped paying me with absolutely no notification of their decision to me or anyone else. There was no reason to "fire" me, there was no reason to underpay me. If there had have been, then why didnt they tell anyone.

The reason I present direct, negative interpretation of these people, is the astonishing level of misrepresentations of the truth and bullying they maintain for the narrative of their "nature" of supporting the community, whilst knowingly creating a product designed to force people into their enclave.

OK, enough of this.

The analysis is: I presented all of this in detail, as one of three programmers, as the second longest member of the development team after Eric, went "unheard and unnoticed", in September 2017. If you think my domain specific knowledge is in question, or that I had no confidence to express my beliefs (!). If you really think that these are lovely people who have got 20 million dollars from a project developed as a cooperative, that they have now turned into a straight corporation, where there current development team is a corporate one with no experience of the intial cooperative process (other than arguably Nico, but he lived on site only for a few days two or three times, we lived together and formed this project on A/E's foundation, 7 days a week, for months).

If you honestly think that all of that doesnt smack of a plan being put in action, then please, go ahead and "learn" how to build "agent-centric" apps by embedding your mind and core development culture in a brand new ecosystem, with a monolithic centrepiece...

And you are free to decide that my hard edge towards these people is some kind of sickness of mine, or equivocation between two opposing points of view, and I am free to shout loudly "no, Im responding to how I was treated in a fair and considered way".

xx
gl;hf;
Be prepared to have your predictions come true

ᐧ

ᐧ

Yes, but @christopher7, regardless of what did or didn't happen in the past isn't it better for you and for the community that you are presumably seeking to serve to be pragmatic and forward looking? Could you please provide more information on the fork of Holochain that you say you managed to help obtain funding for? How can I follow what they are up to? And how can I support the creation of PNDHT-facilitated agent-centric computing and agent-centric computing-powered communities built using mature ecosystems such as Wordpress, as you are advocating? And asides from what they may or may not have done are you able to give a bit of credit to Art and Eric for coming up with the concept of PNDHTs which you are clearly a big fan of? Cheers! :-)

I have given and very positive clear credit, many times in this thread, as well as in the prezi. I agree this is important.

the other project is not open source, and they have apparently changed from their pndht as a central goal.

you specifically mentioned that you didn't think I had brought it up at the time. just making it clear.

there is another channel on loomio, now, which is for working on the specification of a PNDHT as an open project. personally I'm not comfortable putting out furtherspecifics without someone from Holo involved in the conversation, given my clear history as an employee there. Paul has mentioned he would like to be involved, but had other commitments at this time.

thanks Adam

"contractor" rather than employee. Holo didn't have any "employees" other than Arthur and Eric, when I was there. I don't know about the situation today.

as a further "forward positive", I believe that community and systems developers in certain spaces would do well to get their heads around the agent-centric truth paradigm, with the caveat of avoiding stands of logic starting from "opt-out" security.

It has certainly come as news to me that agent-centric computing could be implemented using the protocol in conjunction with existing software ecosystems (Wordpress, Python, etc) in the way that Chris describes

That could depend on how we define "agent-centric computing". Holochain uses that term at times, but they've also literally sold a big picture: a technical stack of related systems, to generate fully distributed computing. To enable such fully distributed computing, agents must use protocols and apps which fairly, securely and fully distribute all data processing and hosting across any number of nodes.

I'm not a software coder, and I don't know if Chris' conception of the "pndht" can replicate all of Holochain's intended distributed processing and hosting functions. If the pndht can indeed replicate all of those functions, I'd still be quite unsure whether its separate development would be feasibly likely to catalyze the timely emergence of a major global distributed computing ecosystem, which the Holochain team is explicitly trying to catalyze by building the Holo platform plus Holo Fuel, etcetera.

As much as I can remember, Holochain has always seemed quite explicit and upfront about the degree of centralized design which they intend to govern, while enabling anyone to fork the open source Holochain code or to derive an open source protocol from it. Does any of their PR actively mislead anyone into thinking that their planned tech stack is the only way to achieve their distributed computing goals? I haven't seen it, but everyone is free to take the personal responsibility of judging them in the court of public opinion.

@christopher7 , you are of course free to separately develop a pndht, and to develop support for it and any related systems, in which each important component (or fork thereof) is governed by any able persons or groups. Of course that goes without saying, but I find myself in the strange place of desiring to emphasize it. I assume that you want to govern or co-govern some of the work, such as a pndht, and to be compensated for it. Good luck in whatever you constructively build or co-build. I'd like to have links for any related websites: not just the digital presentation, but news/updates.

I don't work for Holochain and I'm no expert on their tech, so this might be my last substantial comment here.

Hey Greg, I don't know if you've read the whole thread. Chris has made a number of points which I consider extremely important and which I would like to have known about earlier. I was under the impression that the PNDHT was one of the main things that they were currently working on and it came as a big surprise to me to learn from Chris and Paul that that wasn't the case. I feel a lot of sympathy with Chris's argument about the value of creating an open and federated PNDHT for other reasons too. Holochain make a lot about their commitment to drawing inspiration from nature but it strikes me that in several important respects Chris's ideas are more respectful of biomimetic and evolutionary principles. By prioritizing work on a PNDHT that anyone could use they would:

1) Be helping to create the greatest diversity of social organisms in the minimum amount of time with all of the infinite variety of possibilities which that could give rise to.

2) Be trusting the evolutionary process itself - and acting as its stewards - rather than trying to design a desired outcome upon the basis of limited and incomplete knowledge.

3) Be creating a "stable intermediate form" that would consolidate the first stage of progress towards distributed autonomy and serve as a firm foundation for further steps.

4) Facilitate the reapplication of mature software ecosystems within the new context of agent-centric computing.

It isn't a point that Chris has explicitly made himself but in all of the four above respects it strikes me that the course of action that Chris advocates is more is more aligned with biomimetic principles (which the Holochain team say that they are committed to) than the course of action which they have actually taken. I also think that Chris's moral argument - that the world doesn't have ten years to wait for HApps to reach the same level of maturity as Wordpress and Python - is a rather compelling one that deserves an answer.

In any case if you feel that you require proof that Chris has made some important points you need surely look no further than the fact that Paul has, very graciously, thanked Chris for helping to clarify his thinking. I'm not judging anyone especially harshly here but I do feel disappointed that this information wasn't made available to me earlier. Holochain are not just a software development team. They are attempting to spearhead a movement and make a great deal of their commitment to educate the community. I simply think that they've fallen short of their own standards here, not in terms of the decision that they've made since they are entitled to make whatever decision they choose, but in terms of their failure to communicate that a decision had been made and to explain the reasons for that. But of course there is a context and that is something that I've also tried to acknowledge.

In any case my main point is a forward looking and outcome-focused one. Primarily thanking @pauldaoust1 and asking him to make good on the things that he's said he will do. Then everyone can get at least a part of what they want and we will swiftly arrive at the agent-centric computing utopia by means of the detailed roadmap that I have shared above - YAY! ;-)

I was under the impression that the PNDHT was one of the main things that they were currently working on

@adamwaterhouse they certainly are working on a DHT, as a key element of the Holochain app. Do you mean that you were under the impression that they're working on a DHT protocol, or app, to be available separately from the Holochain app? If so, can you figure out how you came to have that impression?

I'm not implying that Holochain PR, and team member statements, have been perfectly accurate, or consistently minimized risks of misinterpretation. I haven't really seen all of the PR, nor most of the personal statements. I would prefer for public criticisms to be as clearly explained as possible, thus giving others a better chance to assess their importance.

I do recognize and appreciate your forward looking and outcome-focused attitude. Thanks for that!

Hey Greg, I have a felt sense of how this all played out upon the basis of my personal contact with these folk. They're all wonderful people but they're all people and, of course, have both strengths and weaknesses. I don't consider anything that I've written to constitute public criticism and think that you are perhaps taking me a little over-seriously and not quite getting the tone or purpose of my communication which is to bash a few heads together in order to try to restore some mutual respect! ;-)

Okay, well this thread looks a bit different to me Adam but that's okay. I think there's sufficient mutual respect here, with some people (Chris included) making great efforts to contribute substantially. By contrast, it looks unlikely for mutual respect to develop between Chris and the Holochain team, unless maybe they have constructive direct dialogue, which I'm definitely not holding my breath on. And hey that's okay too: not everyone in p2p design and organizing need to get along. (But most of us probably do.)

I feel a bit dissatisfied with my response of last night and want to have another go. However, I want to prefece my remarks by thanking you for the incredibly valuable information that you have been sharing on the requirements for a protocol for p2p economic activity. I really appreciate that.

With regards to this thread in particular I feel that you are responding to my points in a very decontextualised way that causes you to misinterpret me. Further you are setting your own standards by which I should judge Holochain's actions and asking me to justify my position with respect to them. This is a recipe for misunderstanding. My remarks and points of view only really make sense within the context of the entire conversation within this thread, the in-person contact and interactions that I have had with Chris and with members of Holochain, my own investment of time and money into Holochain and the expectations that I had, and the criteria by which I myself am judging some of their actions. Above all it only makes sense within the context of an understanding of my motivation which is not to make any sort of "public criticism" of Holochain - if I wanted to do that I would write an open letter on Medium.com and post it on social media - but rather to try to promote a greater level of mutual respect and understanding between Chris and Holochain (represented here by Paul). If you want any further information or clarification about any of this I will be happy to have a video call with you sometime but I don't feel that it would be productive for either of us to continue discussing such points here - I feel that we have reached the outer limits of what can be accomplished through messages.

I would, however, very much like to know how you came to possess such a deep level of understanding of p2p protocols without a programming background. It gives me hope as I want to be able to understand these concepts without having to learn to code.

I appreciate @adamwaterhouse that you want to maintain strong context for all your remarks here, and that you don't intend it as "public criticism" of Holochain. FWIW, "publicness" isn't really a binary yes/no state; it's a potentially complex dimension. For example, this is a searchable public forum-- however, yes it is inconspicuous, and we can certainly hope that people won't extract anything from here in any badly decontextualized ways.

I would, however, very much like to know how you came to possess such a deep level of understanding of p2p protocols without a programming background.

I'm a fairly well-trained designer (esp. film production) and I've somehow become a p2p organizing systems designer, because that's simply where my life experience-- including intensely painful disasters in nonprofits and volunteer-based projects-- led me.

I'm Buddhist and when I had bad experiences in group projects, it was easy for me to not blame specific actors for reflecting the biases of their environments, such as exploitative social media platforms. I'm a philosopher of language, and when I focused on studying digital networking technology, it was easy for me to see that it always includes arbitrary technical assumptions.

I try to repeatedly start simply from ground zero, building new language and tech potentials which seem clearly possible to me. I don't code software, but I've made myself focus strictly on modular media design (and 'cultural code') for years.

To further get where I'm coming from, I'd recommend reading this two-part essay of mine: Developing P2P Networking and Nonlinear Dialogue.

Thanks again Adam for your constructive tone here, and for trying to promote greater mutual respect and understanding between participants.

I'dlove to know what it is people think is being built. that is "other" than the pndht (which I coined in the prezi btw). I honestly am fascinated as to what constructs people have built in their minds, since, as I pointed out, the holochain "client" could be any piece of software, including, literally, a web browser.

I am, to repeat myself,, fascinated as to what it is people think is the value of, or even meaning of the holochain "client". lol. what is it? perhaps having the discussion from that perspective will help people build functional constructs.

how on earth are these people getting away with not producing the pndht, which is the core value of their entire marketing narrative?

I am deeply touched, or impressed, by how this conversation has progressed and the place it has reached. It has needed diverse personal contributions from us diverse individuals, none of whom could or would have done this alone. First, those including @bobhaugen @strypey @olisb and @gregorycassel led the way in engaging @christopher7 , and then passed the baton to others including @adamwaterhouse @pauldaoust1 and @tiberiusbrastavice . What I take from this is that we don't need to worry about not being able to do everything ourselves. Every one of us is imperfect and fallible. But as @michelbauwens1 has famously written, "the next buddha will be a collective", (which I imagine draws on Thich Nhat Hanh's saying, "The next buddha will be a sangha") and "Together we know everything, together we have everything".

As may already be very obvious, I'm interested in "protocols" for distributed human peer networks, to create and to use, to give to and receive from, the technical ones.

So, great. Not much more that needs to be said from me. I invite people who are writing these sort of "concilliatory" english sentences, to represent whatever they are thinking, to try and describe what exactly Holo have done in the last 2 years. Perhaps from the aspects of "marketing", "network development", "promises" and "software".

Best of luck