July 28, 2025
SIGPfB Async Discussion: In-Stream vs. In-Structure Tension Management
Participants: timber1997, _vgr, rafa_0x, plague_year
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.
The conversation revealed a key distinction: in-structure protocols (formal rules, role specifications, office layouts) evolve through step-changes but have continuous effects, while in-stream protocols (coaching, apprenticeships, tactical maneuvering) evolve incrementally and activate through discrete individual interactions. Participants noted that in-stream practices, though often undocumented, are surprisingly critical to organizational success.
A particularly relevant insight emerged regarding crypto/blockchain contexts, where rigid permission structures around formal changes force reliance on in-stream management. The group concluded with a warning about category failures—attempting to implement in-stream technologies like LLMs as fixed structures rather than discretionary tools is likely to fail.
- 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.