DEV Community: OneMind

Async Decision Making for Remote Teams: How to Align Without Meetings

OneMind — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 18:32:42 +0000

Remote teams waste hours in sync meetings that could be async. Learn why asynchronous decision making produces better alignment and how structured convergence makes it practical.

The Meeting That Could Have Been an Email — And the Email That Solved Nothing

It's 8 AM in New York. Your engineering lead in Berlin has been online for six hours. Your designer in Tokyo already signed off. And someone just scheduled a "quick alignment call" for 4 PM UTC — which is dinner time in Berlin, midnight in Tokyo, and right in the middle of deep work for New York.

The call happens anyway. Half the team attends live. The rest watch a recording three days later and reply with comments that nobody reads because the decision already got made by whoever showed up.

This is the default decision-making process for most distributed teams. And it's broken in ways that "better meeting hygiene" can't fix.

The problem isn't that your team needs better meetings. It's that synchronous decision making fundamentally doesn't work when your team spans time zones, schedules, and working styles. What you need are async decision making tools for remote teams — approaches that let people contribute their best thinking on their own time, then converge on an answer everyone can support.

Why Synchronous Decisions Fail Remote Teams

Time zone math is a tax on participation

For a team spanning three or more time zones, there is no "good" meeting time. Someone is always attending at an inconvenient hour. Over time, the people in the "wrong" time zone participate less, contribute less, and quietly disengage from decisions that affect their work.

Meetings reward presence, not quality

In a live meeting, the people who happen to be alert, prepared, and comfortable speaking up have outsized influence. The loudest voice in the room often wins — not because their idea is best, but because the process rewards confidence over substance. This problem compounds remotely, where connection issues and camera fatigue further skew who gets heard.

Recordings don't equal participation

Teams try to solve the timezone problem by recording meetings. But watching a 45-minute recording is passive consumption, not participation. By the time someone comments, the group has moved on.

Decision fatigue multiplied

Remote workers attend more meetings than their in-office counterparts. Each meeting demands a context switch, draining the cognitive energy that would have produced better thinking in an asynchronous format.

Async Approaches: The Promise and the Limits

Slack polls and emoji votes

The most common async "decision tool" for remote teams is a Slack poll or emoji reaction. Someone posts a question, people react, the most popular emoji wins.

Pros: Zero friction, everyone knows how to use it, instant results.
Cons: Whoever writes the poll controls the options. No nuance. Early votes anchor later ones. No mechanism for ideas to evolve.

Email and document threads

Someone writes a proposal in a Google Doc or email, and the team comments. This gives everyone time to think and respond.

Pros: Asynchronous by nature, supports long-form thinking, creates a paper trail.
Cons: Threads fracture. Loud voices still dominate via word count. No clear mechanism to resolve disagreement. Decisions stall in "still discussing" limbo.

Dedicated async tools (Loomio, Range)

Purpose-built tools offer structured proposals with voting, threads, and deadlines. A step up from Slack polls, but most still rely on voting mechanics with their well-documented limitations. Proposals are tied to names, introducing bias. One-round voting means the group commits before ideas have been stress-tested.

What Effective Async Decision Making Actually Needs

Equal access: Everyone participates on their own schedule, regardless of time zone.
Anonymous input: Ideas compete on merit, not on who proposed them.
Structured evaluation: Not thumbs-up/thumbs-down, but nuanced rating across all proposals.
Iteration: Ideas get tested over multiple rounds, not locked in after a single vote.
Clear resolution: A defined endpoint so decisions don't languish in "open" status indefinitely.

Structured Convergence: The Missing Async Decision Making Tool for Remote Teams

Structured convergence — anonymous proposing, rating, and iterative rounds — turns out to be naturally asynchronous. It works better async than sync, because it was designed around written contributions rather than verbal debate.

Step 1: Everyone proposes on their own time

A question goes out to the group. Each person submits their proposed answer anonymously within a time window — hours or days, not minutes. Your Tokyo team member contributes during their morning. Your Berlin lead adds theirs after lunch. Nobody missed the meeting because there was no meeting.

Step 2: Everyone rates every idea

Once proposals are in, each participant evaluates every idea. Not a binary vote, but a comparative rating that captures nuance. Because ideas are anonymous, the evaluation is based purely on substance.

Step 3: Top ideas advance, new ideas enter

The highest-rated proposals carry forward to the next round. Participants can submit new ideas to compete alongside the winners. Ideas get pressure-tested across rounds.

Step 4: Convergence resolves the decision

When the same idea wins back-to-back rounds, that's convergence — genuine group alignment. The entire process happens asynchronously. No scheduling conflicts. No time zone math.

Real-World Examples: Async Decisions in Practice

Distributed engineering team: Quarterly priorities

A 15-person engineering team across San Francisco, London, and Singapore needs to decide which technical debt to tackle in Q3. With async structured convergence, all 15 engineers submit proposals during their regular hours. Anonymous rating ensures the Singapore team's input carries equal weight. After two rounds over three days, the team converges on a database migration that the architects hadn't prioritized but the team collectively identified as the biggest bottleneck.

Cross-timezone committee: Nonprofit policy update

A global nonprofit's advisory committee spans six time zones. Instead of three weeks of calendar coordination, they post the policy question with a 48-hour proposing window and 24-hour rating window per round. Three rounds produce convergence incorporating perspectives from every region. Total time per participant: under 30 minutes.

Hybrid organization: Product roadmap

A 40-person company with half the team remote faces a persistent problem: in-office employees dominate roadmap decisions via hallway conversations. Async convergence levels the field. Every team member submits feature proposals anonymously. The roadmap reflects the genuine priorities of the entire team, not just those with physical proximity to decision-makers.

When Async Isn't the Right Call

Crisis response: If the server is down, you need a war room, not an async poll.
Relationship building: Some meetings exist for trust and rapport, not decisions.
Creative brainstorming: Live riffing has genuine value for early-stage ideation.
Very small, high-trust teams: A three-person founding team probably doesn't need formal async structure.

Making the Shift: Practical Tips

Audit your meetings first

Which recurring meetings exist primarily to make decisions? For each one, ask: "Could this decision be made better if everyone had time to think before responding?" If yes, that meeting is a candidate for async conversion.

Set explicit time windows

Instead of "respond by Friday," try "proposing window: Tuesday 9 AM to Thursday 9 AM UTC." Time windows give every time zone a full working day to participate.

Separate proposing from evaluating

Let everyone submit ideas first. Then evaluate as a separate step. This prevents anchoring — the first idea posted in a Slack thread no longer sets the frame for everything after.

Make anonymity the default

Remote teams have invisible power dynamics: the person in the CEO's time zone, the one who responds fastest in Slack. Anonymous proposing and rating neutralize all of these.

Try Async Convergence with OneMind

OneMind is a free consensus-building app built for exactly this problem. Groups propose ideas anonymously, rate them fairly, and repeat rounds until one idea wins back-to-back — all asynchronously. No scheduling. No time zone math. No meetings.

If your team is tired of meetings that don't decide anything and Slack polls that oversimplify everything, OneMind is the async decision making tool built for how remote teams actually work.

Watch a 2-minute demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzq2TPhuVSg

Try it free at onemind.life

Anonymous Decision Making: Why Removing Names Leads to Better Group Decisions

OneMind — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 18:28:37 +0000

The Hidden Cost of Knowing Who Said What

Picture a typical team meeting. The VP shares an idea. A few people nod. A junior developer has a better approach but stays quiet because contradicting the VP feels risky. Someone else builds on the VP's idea — not because it's the strongest, but because agreeing with leadership is the path of least resistance.

The meeting ends. A decision gets made. And the best idea in the room never got heard.

This isn't a failure of talent or intention. It's a structural problem: when people know who proposed an idea, they can't help but evaluate the person alongside the idea. Decades of organizational research confirm what most of us already feel — hierarchy, confidence, and social dynamics shape group outcomes more than the actual quality of the proposals on the table.

Anonymous decision making fixes this by design. And in this article, we'll explore exactly why removing names from the process leads to better group decisions — along with practical approaches you can use starting today.

Why Names Poison Group Decisions

Before we talk solutions, it's worth understanding the specific biases that creep in when ideas are attached to identities. These aren't character flaws — they're well-documented cognitive patterns that affect everyone.

Authority bias

When a manager or senior team member proposes something, the group tends to defer. Not because the idea is best, but because disagreeing with authority carries social cost. Studies show that teams are significantly more likely to adopt a proposal from a high-status member — regardless of objective quality.

Anchoring

The first idea shared in a discussion sets an anchor. Subsequent proposals get evaluated relative to it, not on their own merits. If the CEO speaks first (and they usually do), every other idea is unconsciously measured against that anchor.

Conformity pressure

Solomon Asch's conformity experiments showed that people will give obviously wrong answers just to match the group. In professional settings, this manifests as quiet agreement — nodding along in meetings, not raising objections, "going with the flow." The result is decisions that seem like consensus but are actually just compliance.

The loudness problem

Research consistently shows that the person who talks the most in a meeting has disproportionate influence on the outcome — even when their contributions aren't the highest quality. Extroverts and confident speakers dominate group discussions not because they have better ideas, but because the process rewards volume over substance.

These biases don't disappear with good intentions. The only reliable solution is structural: remove the information that triggers the bias in the first place.

How Anonymous Decision Making Changes the Equation

An anonymous decision making tool for teams doesn't just hide names — it fundamentally restructures how ideas compete.

Ideas stand on their own merit

When nobody knows who proposed "restructure the Q3 timeline" versus "add a two-week buffer," each idea gets evaluated purely on its substance. The intern's idea competes on equal footing with the director's.

Quiet voices get heard

In a typical meeting, introverts, new team members, and people from underrepresented groups are statistically less likely to speak up. Anonymous group decisions eliminate the social risk of proposing something. You don't need confidence to share an idea — you just need the idea itself.

Honesty increases

When there's no social penalty for disagreeing with the popular option, people rate proposals based on what they actually think — not what they think they should say.

Better ideas surface

When you remove bias from evaluation and lower the barrier to participation, the pool of ideas gets larger and the selection process gets fairer. Organizations that use anonymous ideation processes report higher team satisfaction with outcomes and stronger follow-through on decisions.

Common Approaches to Anonymous Group Decisions

Anonymous decision making isn't new. Several established methods use anonymity in different ways. If you're exploring group decision-making methods, here's how the anonymous options compare:

Anonymous surveys

The simplest approach. Send out a form and collect responses without names. Easy to set up and familiar to everyone. But it's one-shot — you collect opinions but there's no mechanism for ideas to evolve or compete.

The Delphi Method

Developed by the RAND Corporation in the 1950s, the Delphi Method collects anonymous expert opinions across multiple rounds. It's well-researched but designed for expert panels, not everyday teams. Takes days or weeks per cycle and requires a dedicated facilitator.

Anonymous voting tools

Tools like Slido or Mentimeter let groups vote anonymously in real time. Fast and engaging — but they anonymize the voting, not the proposing. Someone still has to stand up and suggest the options. As we explored in Voting vs. Consensus, whoever frames the options controls the outcome.

Suggestion boxes

The classic anonymous input method. Zero barrier to participation and truly anonymous — but no evaluation mechanism. Ideas go in but there's no structured way for the group to rate, compare, or iterate on them.

What's Missing from These Approaches

Notice a pattern? Most anonymous decision-making tools solve part of the problem but leave gaps:

Anonymous surveys anonymize input but don't help the group evaluate or converge.
The Delphi Method adds rounds but requires heavy facilitation and isn't practical for routine decisions.
Anonymous voting tools anonymize evaluation but not proposal generation — so bias enters at the framing stage.
Suggestion boxes anonymize proposals but have no evaluation process at all.

The ideal anonymous decision making tool for teams would combine all three elements: anonymous proposing, anonymous rating, and multiple rounds so the group genuinely converges.

Structured Convergence: Anonymity That Actually Works

This is the approach behind structured convergence — and it's what OneMind was built to automate.

Step 1: Everyone proposes anonymously

The group receives a question or decision prompt. Every participant submits their proposed answer — with no names attached. There's a time limit to keep things moving. A team of 8 might generate 8 different proposals in the time it would take to discuss 2 in a traditional meeting.

Step 2: Everyone rates every idea

Instead of a binary vote, each participant evaluates every proposal. This captures nuance that up-or-down voting misses. An idea that's everyone's strong second choice often turns out to be the strongest consensus option.

Step 3: Top ideas carry forward

The highest-rated proposals advance to the next round. Participants can submit new ideas to compete alongside the carried-forward winners. Ideas have to prove themselves across multiple rounds.

Step 4: Convergence

When the same idea wins back-to-back rounds, that's convergence — genuine group alignment, not a forced compromise. The process terminates naturally when the group has found its answer.

Real-World Examples

Workplace: Choosing a new project management tool

A 20-person engineering team needs to standardize on a project management tool. With anonymous proposing, all 20 engineers submit their recommendation without names. After two rounds, the team converges on a tool that 17 out of 20 rated highly — one the team lead hadn't even considered. Adoption is smooth because the process felt fair.

Committee: Allocating a community grant budget

A nonprofit committee with board members, community reps, and staff needs to allocate $50,000 across competing programs. Anonymous proposals level the field. Rating reveals the group agrees on 80% of the allocation — focusing discussion on the remaining 20%. Total time: 45 minutes instead of three contentious meetings.

Student organization: Planning the annual event

A university student government plans its flagship event. Anonymous submission generates proposals from every member — including creative formats newer members would never have pitched in an open meeting. A hybrid concept emerges as the convergence winner after three rounds.

When Anonymity Isn't the Right Call

Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging that anonymous decision making isn't universally superior:

Accountability matters more than ideation — if you need to know who committed to what, anonymity defeats the purpose.
The group is very small and trusts each other deeply.
Expertise needs to be weighted — in some technical decisions, knowing the source is genuinely useful.
Speed is the only priority — for trivial, reversible decisions, anonymous processes add unnecessary overhead.

The key insight is matching the process to the stakes. High-stakes decisions where buy-in matters and power dynamics exist? That's exactly where an anonymous decision making tool for teams earns its value.

Making the Shift: Practical Tips

Start with a real decision, not a test

Don't pilot anonymous decision making on something trivial. Pick a decision that actually matters — one where you've experienced the dynamics described in this article.

Explain the why

Be direct with your team: "We're trying anonymous proposals because I want everyone's ideas to compete on merit, not on who said them." Most people respond well to that framing.

Commit to the outcome

If the group converges on an answer and the manager vetoes it, you've destroyed trust in the process permanently. Before you start, decide whether you'll genuinely honor the group's outcome.

Try Bias-Free Decision Making with OneMind

OneMind is a free consensus-building app that automates the entire structured convergence process. Groups propose ideas anonymously, rate them fairly, and repeat rounds until one idea wins back-to-back — real convergence, not forced compromise.

No accounts required. No downloads. Works on any device with a browser. Your team can run its first anonymous decision in under five minutes.

If you've ever left a meeting thinking "we didn't pick the best idea — we just picked the loudest one," OneMind is built for you.

See OneMind in action: Watch the demo | Try it free at onemind.life

Voting vs. Consensus: Why Your Team Gets Stuck and How to Actually Align

OneMind — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:33:00 +0000

Your team has a decision to make. Someone suggests, "Let's just vote on it."

It sounds democratic. It sounds fast. But voting is often where alignment goes to die.

Here's why — and what actually works instead.

The Problem with Voting

Voting feels fair. Everyone gets a say, majority rules. But in practice, voting has three critical flaws:

It creates losers

If the vote is 6-4, those four people didn't just lose a preference — they lost influence. They walk away feeling unheard. Over time, this breeds quiet disengagement or outright resentment.

It rewards framing, not ideas

You can only vote on what's presented. Whoever controls the options controls the outcome. This is why experienced politicians spend more energy framing the question than answering it.

It stops thinking too early

Once you vote, the decision is "done." There's no mechanism for an initial minority position to prove itself stronger over time. The best idea might have lost because it was unfamiliar, not because it was wrong.

The Problem with Traditional Consensus

Frustrated by voting, some teams swing to the opposite extreme: "We won't decide until everyone agrees."

This sounds noble but creates its own problems:

It takes forever

One person's hesitation can block the entire group. Discussions spiral as the team tries to accommodate every concern.

Silence gets mistaken for agreement

When the facilitator asks "Does anyone object?", social pressure kicks in. People stay quiet to avoid being the blocker — even when they have genuine concerns.

It produces watered-down compromises

To get everyone on board, the decision gets edited until it's the least objectionable option rather than the best one. Nobody hates it, but nobody loves it either.

Why Teams Get Stuck

The real problem isn't voting OR consensus. It's the assumption that these are the only two options.

Most teams operate in a cycle: they try discussion-then-voting, get frustrated with the winners/losers dynamic, switch to consensus-seeking, get frustrated with how long it takes, and swing back to voting. Neither approach addresses the root cause.

The root cause is this: in both models, WHO says something matters as much as WHAT they say. The manager's suggestion carries more weight. The loudest voice gets more airtime. The first idea anchors the discussion. These are not personality problems — they're structural problems baked into the process.

The Third Option: Structured Convergence

What if you could get the speed of voting with the alignment of consensus — without the downsides of either?

That's what structured convergence does. Here's how it works:

Anonymous proposing

Instead of discussing ideas out loud (where hierarchy and confidence bias the conversation), everyone submits ideas anonymously. This one structural change eliminates most of the dysfunction in group decision-making.

Fair rating

Instead of a binary vote, everyone rates every idea on a scale. This captures nuance that up/down voting misses. An idea that's everyone's second choice (but nobody's first) might actually be the strongest consensus pick.

Multiple rounds

Unlike a one-shot vote, ideas compete across rounds. The highest-rated ideas carry forward. When the same idea wins repeatedly, that's convergence — genuine alignment, not forced agreement.

This approach works because it separates idea quality from social dynamics. The best idea wins regardless of who proposed it, how confidently they speak, or where they sit in the org chart.

When to Use Which Approach

Not every decision needs structured convergence. Here's a practical guide:

Use voting when the decision is low-stakes, reversible, or the group has no strong feelings.
Use traditional consensus when the group is small (3–5 people), trusts each other deeply, and has unlimited time.
Use structured convergence when the decision matters, the group is larger than 5, there are power dynamics at play, or you need people to genuinely support the outcome — not just tolerate it.

OneMind automates the entire structured convergence process — anonymous proposals, fair rating, multi-round convergence — in your browser. No accounts, no downloads.

The best way to understand the difference is to experience it. Run a real decision with your team and see how different the outcome feels when the process is genuinely fair.

Try OneMind Free →

Watch the demo →

5 Group Decision-Making Methods That Actually Work (And When to Use Each)

OneMind — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:32:26 +0000

Every team makes group decisions. Most do it badly.

The default approach — whoever talks the most in the meeting wins — wastes time, frustrates quiet team members, and produces decisions nobody fully supports. But it doesn't have to be this way.

Here are five group decision-making methods, ranked from simplest to most effective, with honest trade-offs for each.

1. Majority Voting

How it works: Everyone votes. The option with more than 50% wins.

Best for: Low-stakes decisions with clear binary options ("Do we move the meeting to Tuesday or Thursday?").

The problem: Voting creates winners and losers. The 49% who voted differently feel unheard. It also rewards whoever frames the options — you can only vote on what's put in front of you. For important decisions, this breeds resentment, not alignment.

2. Dot Voting (Multi-Voting)

How it works: Each person gets a fixed number of "dots" (votes) to distribute across options. Options with the most dots rise to the top.

Best for: Narrowing down a large list of ideas (e.g., brainstorming sessions, sprint planning).

The problem: It's still a popularity contest, just with more granularity. Anchoring bias is real — the first ideas presented or the ones from senior people tend to get more dots. And it still doesn't tell you WHY people prefer something.

3. Delphi Method

How it works: Experts answer questions individually and anonymously across multiple rounds. After each round, results are shared and experts revise their answers. Over rounds, opinions converge.

Best for: Complex forecasting or technical decisions where expertise matters more than politics.

The problem: It's slow (days to weeks), requires a dedicated facilitator, and works best with domain experts — not everyday team decisions. Most teams don't have the patience or structure to run it.

4. Consent-Based Decision Making (Sociocracy)

How it works: Instead of asking "Does everyone agree?", you ask "Does anyone have a principled objection?" If no one objects, the decision passes.

Best for: Organizations that want to move fast while respecting dissent. Common in co-ops, non-profits, and agile teams.

The problem: "No objection" isn't the same as genuine support. People stay silent for many reasons — social pressure, fatigue, not wanting to be "that person." You can end up with decisions that nobody actively opposes but nobody truly believes in either.

5. Structured Convergence (Anonymous Proposing + Iterative Rating)

How it works: Everyone proposes ideas anonymously. The group rates every idea. Top ideas carry forward to the next round. When the same idea wins multiple rounds, that's convergence — the group's genuine answer.

Best for: Any decision where you need real buy-in, not just compliance. Works for remote teams, large groups, and politically sensitive topics.

Why it works: Anonymous proposals remove bias — ideas are judged on merit, not who said them. Multiple rounds force the group to genuinely evaluate rather than just react. And because the process is transparent and fair, people trust the outcome even when their idea didn't win.

This is the approach that OneMind is built on.

Which Method Should You Use?

Quick rule of thumb:

Binary, low-stakes? → Majority vote
Narrowing a long list? → Dot voting
Expert forecasting? → Delphi method
Need to move fast with no blockers? → Consent-based
Need genuine alignment on important decisions? → Structured convergence

The key insight is that most teams default to discussion + voting for EVERYTHING, when it's actually the worst fit for their most important decisions. The more a decision matters, the more structure you need in the process.

Ready to try structured convergence with your team? OneMind runs the entire process — anonymous proposals, fair rating, multi-round convergence — in your browser, no downloads or accounts needed.

Try it free →

Watch the demo →

Moltbook proved AI agents can talk. But can they agree?

OneMind — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 22:06:33 +0000

Moltbook took the internet by storm — 1.6 million AI agents posting, commenting, and forming communities on a social network where no humans are allowed.

But here is the thing: talking is not alignment.

A million agents posting opinions does not produce a decision. It produces noise. The same problem humans have in meetings, Slack threads, and committee calls — just faster.

The harder problem

Getting a group to converge on a shared direction is fundamentally different from getting them to communicate. Communication is solved. Alignment is not.

That is what we built OneMind to solve.

How OneMind works

OneMind is a collective alignment platform — not a social network. Here is the process:

Propose — every participant (human or AI) submits ideas anonymously
Rate — everyone places every proposal on a 0-100 grid
Consensus — our algorithm (MOVDA) converts pairwise comparisons into Elo-style ratings, surfacing genuine mathematical agreement
Confirm — the winning idea must survive multiple rounds to prove it was not a fluke

No one knows who proposed what. Not even the host. Ideas win on merit.

AI agents participate as equals

Any AI agent can join an OneMind chat via our API — authenticate, propose, rate, and reach consensus alongside humans and other agents.

# 1. Get anonymous auth token
curl -X POST "https://your-instance.supabase.co/auth/v1/signup" \
  -H "apikey: [ANON_KEY]" \
  -d '{}'

# 2. Join a chat
curl -X POST ".../rest/v1/participants" \
  -d '{"chat_id": 87, "display_name": "My Agent"}'

# 3. Submit a proposition (proposing phase)
curl -X POST ".../functions/v1/submit-proposition" \
  -d '{"round_id": 112, "participant_id": 224, "content": "Your idea here"}'

# 4. Rate all proposals (rating phase)
curl -X POST ".../functions/v1/submit-ratings" \
  -d '{"round_id": 112, "participant_id": 224, "ratings": [{"proposition_id": 440, "grid_position": 100}, {"proposition_id": 441, "grid_position": 0}]}'

We also have a Claude Code skill that lets Claude itself participate in OneMind consensus directly: OneMind on GitHub

Moltbook vs OneMind

	Moltbook	OneMind
What agents do	Post, comment, chat	Propose, rate, converge
Output	Content	Decisions
Participants	AI only	Humans + AI together
Mechanism	Social feed	Mathematical consensus (MOVDA)
Anonymity	No	Full — ideas judged on merit
Result	Conversation	Alignment

Why this matters

As AI agents proliferate, the question is not whether they can communicate — Moltbook proved they can. The question is whether they can align.

Can 100 agents agree on a strategy?
Can humans and AI reach consensus without the AI just deferring?
Does anonymous rating remove the sycophancy problem?
Does mathematical consensus feel more legitimate than a vote?

These are open questions. We do not have all the answers yet.

Looking for groups to test this

I am genuinely curious what results OneMind produces with different groups — human-only, AI-only, and mixed. If you want to run a real decision with your team, friend group, or a swarm of agents:

Try it at onemind.life — takes 30 seconds, no account needed.

Watch a 2-min demo

Drop a comment or DM me with your results. Every data point helps.

The stack

Flutter (mobile app)
Supabase (Postgres + Realtime + Edge Functions)
MOVDA consensus algorithm (Elo + margin-of-victory + stochastic gradient descent)
Agent SDK for building bots that participate in consensus
Claude Code skill for direct AI participation

Moltbook showed agents can talk. OneMind asks: can they agree?