I think you oversimplify
For now I have no problems to stick with summary making. The recording is more an experimental thing - which is why I am very happy when people chime in and comment. BUT:
I would start with there is no “we”. Of course there a bunch of EdgeRyders that use this platform, as it is now, and derive benefit from it. But there is such an overwhelming majority of potential users who cannot use it effectively to get their stuff done! That is what I tried to touch on here and here. Designing a system for privacy and transparency will of course be walking a thin line (very bad idiom in my perspective, as it implies too few dimensions, assumes continuity of the line, and that the line will always be a line - pretty much independent from where you look). My guiding principle is that many of the consequences of an action will strongly affect those working on it (in line with bottom up do-ocracy). If it affects other people it should be in a generally good way. If this is not true they should sit down and reflect some more. If there is some doubt about the distribution of consequences I would want a system that mandates including representatives from groups that are strongly negatively affected (will happen with any project if it is large/impactful enough). These people do not have a veto on all things but they have absolute technical/information oversight and are mandated to balance between the interest of the two groups. They are incentivized mostly by “their group”. “Their group” can decide to withhold their share, and parts of a (larger) share that has to be paid by the audited group, if there is a lack of trust. Thus I hope to achieve an “empathy for the enemy” effect in every project.
Re multiple pgp-keys: In effect this is a much sloppier and less individually private approach than one key. It is more 0.67 of a key.
Re “it is a little harder for […]”: This is not a triviality for me. My vision of a collaborative platform is one where the investment very, very quickly starts to pay back. And this is the hardest to pull off they first time you have to do it. After that it’ll be downhill, and a psychological shift will probably happen on a similar level as wiki vs enc brit*. But if you keep the ingredients from reacting they can’t nucleate into a different “phase” (with different fundamental properties, e.g. approaches to getting stuff done). If the small groups that get together (LOTE) always have to keep overcoming a very large interaction barrier with the rest of the world - they will be slowly absorbed again or usually die out ineffectively. Individual groups are too small to skill-share effectively (not surprising as they are all from the tiny minority of “text inputters” sharing one language on this planet) due to small pool size and degree of uniformity.
They can only get rid of some secondary stresses(?) incurred through the friction and loss such a barrier produces if they interact with the outside world on its terms - or they produce significantly more groups in their vicinity with whom they can (and do) interact more easily because they are similar. I have my doubts on the state of affairs for the latter point. For me it is pretty clear that if you don’t have your hands (sometimes literally) full with work that will make an impact the chances are high that you will coordinate to death (myself included here**). If for you a text box does not incur a too high transaction cost in your view, you may have missed going straight into academia ;). They have a collaborative model based on this already for some time.
The third option is engaging in work that pays off much better than the stuff the outside world is willing or able to engage in. Unfortunately they pretty much picked the low hanging fruit clean (that can be measured in a quarterly report), and now there’s only the rotten financial instruments left. Unless you go for the three Ds of course - but this not the most popular proposition for a do-ocracy. And not the best place for a text box either. That means you gotta do things differently, or be able to measure things differently (however metrics is ultimately a question of authority, and thus more difficult as a first step). And for the reasons stated above, for me, this means inclusiveness. If you rub two sticks together - they sure get warm. But sometimes you got to push a little harder to get something much more useful out of it. Or in the words of an economist:
A trend is a trend is a trend.
But the question is, will it bend?
Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?
*Extremely profound tectonic shift - but nothing compared to a celebrity breakup!
**In everyone’s defense: Of course the most practical thing is a good theory.