People throwing around "proof of personhood" like it's a problem that has already been solved, or is trivially solved.

I can't shake the feeling we've done our people wrong by letting this stuff slide.

Is it too late to adopt a culture of being specific about the solutions we're referring to?

I saw the best minds of my generation certain they could solve really hard problems if they could just verify people on the internet first, inadvertently choosing a harder problem as their adversary.

co founder of @metamask . Making computers behave for us.

https://warpcast.com/danfinlay/0x3a0a5b03

I've been suggesting an approach to solving basically the same category of problems that doesn't require global purity tests for years. One simple intro:

I've been suggesting an approach to solving basically the same category of problems that doesn't require global purity tests for years. One simple intro: https://medium.com/capabul/grassroots-insurance-8b353a1670f6

It's not a coincidence that this kind of thing can be implemented using gator.metamask.io

A lot of work went into paving these foundations. A lot of alpha for those who figure it out.

I agree, there are two distinct components at play. What you’re calling “needs governance” I might define as “involves a decision that must be made atomically”, basically an actor in the actor model. Things like the next version of a piece of software, the next resident of a location, next block, or the uses of a specific pool of funds could all be examples.

I see the gator toolkit as tooling for composing those kinds of actors in a consistent topology with individuals. That article depicts an idealistic individual topology, but realistically there is a weaving of many kinds of actors.

There’s a bit of history and relationship from the actor model to the capability security model that grew very organically, and I think “government as multi agent actor” works well.

I agree, there are two distinct components at play. What you’re calling “needs governance” I might define as “involves a decision that must be made atomically”, basically an actor in the actor model. Things like the next version of a piece of software, the next resident of a location, next block, or the uses of a specific pool of funds could all be examples.

I see the gator toolkit as tooling for composing those kinds of actors in a consistent topology with individuals. That article depicts an idealistic individual topology, but realistically there is a weaving of many kinds of actors.

There’s a bit of history and relationship from the actor model to the capability security model that grew very organically, and I think “government as multi agent actor” works well. https://eighty-twenty.org/2016/10/18/actors-hopl

I think this stuff is good and ideal for these kinds of use cases where you're solving a lender-to-borrower trust problem. It's less ideal for _governance_ use cases (which is a term I use broadly, eg. I include social media voting as governance). In those cases, there are mathematical reasons why you explicitly want to count people, and not just count dollars available. Granted, there _are_ graph-theoretical approaches to try to do that too.... the core difference is that instead of the key building block being "A trusts B to honor their commitments", it's "A trusts B and C to be different"

I agree on the first part… fortunately gator.metamask.io always lets users choose when they reshare, so any transitivity is fully manual.

Not sure what you’re saying with the second part.

build, lift, & coffee | ENS Steward | namestone.xyz | slobo.xyz

in a world with asymmetrical consequences trust isn't as transitive as we'd like it to be 

when it comes to money or reputation, you can always lose way more than you put into the account

Decentralizing infrastructure with Kleomedes |

Building collaboration with Nearchos |

/octant Community Grants Council |

/colinks-and-co CoDAO Council

It’s funny you would ask that, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe this would tend disproportionately towards plutarchy, and I think there’s a lot of economic research that suggests this would actually be very empowering for a lot of people.

I guess it’s a fair question to ask any new project in crypto, because it seems like most peoples’ imaginations stoped at mechanisms that create new tokens from a single central address.

The delegation framework is different. It has nothing to do with issuing tokens from any particular address. It’s a framework for sharing things that you have access to. This can help people with little access get access to more, and it can help people with much access to allocate their fortune, more effectively. 1/2..

How does this not just create Plutarchy where everyone vies for friendships that connect them to higher value circles?

Just like Moxie has made it so users with larger exposure are hesitant to engage with new users, as they might be farmers. 

When you monetize your social connections it erodes the trust network.

If you wanna have health insurance for your kids, you better cozy up to some rich people. Make sure you don't piss them off, otherwise they'll reject your next doctor bill payment.