Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
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?
5 replies
2 recasts
96 reactions
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
https://warpcast.com/danfinlay/0x3a0a5b03
1 reply
0 recast
8 reactions
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
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
4 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
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..
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
As a mechanism, the delegation framework can’t do anything magical about the underlying distribution of physical resources. if a critical resource is being hoarded unfairly by a single party, and they choose not to share it, then sure people could try to cozy up to them, but they could also start sharpening their guillotines. Your assertion that “monetizing social connections erodes trust” either misrepresents the ways that this mechanism relates to trust trust, or disregards the degree to which people utilize social trust to make monetary decisions all the time. This doesn’t monetize social arrangements more than people would willingly choose to: it merely gives them tools to do so with less risk at a larger scale. I encourage you to read up the economics literature on social collateral. Karlan/Mobius have some fantastic work, including this linked article, which includes a game theoretical proof of being side-game-proof, which I think relates to some of your concerns: 2/3..
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13126/w13126.pdf
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
I think you hit the nail on the head for the core of my concern: 1. It doesn't do anything about the current distribution of resources. 2. It doesn't address anything about people's expressed willingness to utilize social trust to manipulate for monetary gain. 3. It merely gives them tools to do so with less risk at larger scale. Building something that just makes a broken system more scalable doesn't sound like solutions in the right direction. The science is interesting, but practically speaking you'd first have to address the currently existing systemic flaws preventing this kind of collaborative social behavior.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
