Network States

sneak peek 👀 

full announcement coming next week

would you consider running it with a civilization trust graph?

building /cabin (cabin.city). founder of LBRY.com, odysee.com, vibe.camp, @farcon. more at grin.io

would you consider running it with a civilization trust graph?
https://mirror.xyz/byldr.eth/fdaGPo1IllQeL7HcO-SKPEX303KmpU6Rjf785kKMHzM

Follow me to read about a vision for a government that won't piss you off.

it's a way to delegate decision making power within a group by following the lines of trust.

Delegations are transitive. A trusts B. B trusts C. Therefore A trusts C, and C now has the voting weight of 3 people in decision making processes should they choose to be involved.

what would it mean in practice to run this event with a civilization trust graph?

Hmm. Interesting think about. 
So an event has any number of logistical concerns, paid speakers, ticket prices, and things to consider.

Imagining what it would look like to run an event with a trust graph…

So let’s say you’re the founder and planner. And you start adding people to a graph noting that they’re somehow materially involved in the event. 

Let’s say by default that when someone is added to the graph their voice is delegated to you by default.

And this continues — you remain the sole decision maker

Let’s also say there’s a GitHub or Reddit like platform where all the discussion and deliberation around the choices for the event are being recorded.

Most people don’t want to get involved and are fine with whatever choices are made. So their default allocation stays with you.

And let’s say it’s a headache to re-write the speaker list or you just don’t see the point and ignore this input.

And now they go and actually re-write the proposed speaker order.

Now… we find out that more people in the group also care about this issue. And they begin undelegating from you and re-delegating

To the proposer of the new speaker list.

And this person actually get so many re-delegates that they have significant power on the graph.

You recognize and re-prioritize this issue that you thought was a non-issue. 

They submit a “pull request” to actually change the speaker schedule and it gets approved.

Now let’s say this was the only issue this person had and they no longer wish to be involved in the decision making, so they delegate back to you, making you the sole decision maker, and also transferring their subdelegates back to you.

The graph is nearly the same as before but now you get some of your delegates through this one node through which you used to have a disagreement with.

Now you have your decision making power back, but you know that this one node is important and to maybe review certain decisions with them.

The evolution of the graph shows the history of disagreement and consensus in a way. 

I’m curious to see if these dynamics would play out as I imagine. Like if people would mostly undelegate for single-issue type things and then re-delegate to get out of the way.

But let’s say one day… when the list of speakers is announced. Unbeknownst to you, there’s some person who people want to hear that isn’t on the list, and so one person undelegates and uses their voice directly to post an issue on GitHub about this speaker not being included.