SIGPfB Async Discussion: In-Stream vs. In-Structure Tension Management

The SIGPfB group held an async discussion on a preprint paper about managing tensions in business protocols. Due to quorum issues, participants engaged asynchronously with two guiding prompts about why certain tensions are managed in-stream versus in-structure, and risks of managing tensions in the wrong medium.

Key points

• In-structure protocols evolve in step-changes but have continuous effects, while in-stream protocols evolve incrementally and are enacted discretely based on individual interactions.
• In-stream tension management (coaching, apprenticeships) is often invisible in documentation but critically valuable for network deepening, whereas in-structure expertise proves valuable for cross-network transitions.
• Crypto's rigid permission model for structural changes forces greater reliance on tactical in-stream maneuvering, making informal management practices unusually important.
• Attempting to implement in-stream technologies (like LLM chatbots) as rigid structures is a category failure that likely dooms adoption; they work better as discretionary tools.