Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Why do people think proof of human is useful?
74 replies
33 recasts
345 reactions
max ↑🎩
@baseddesigner.eth
To avoid bots in digital products: leaving reviews, sniping memecoins, generating replies
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
What happens if you pay people to do that or rent out their proof of human credentials?
6 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
Eddy Lazzarin đźź
@eddy
People only have one proof of human credential to rent out so you have to convince many individual people to rent theirs to continue to spam/attack. And because people can only get one themselves, they take risk in lending theirs out. In other words, the marginal cost of acquiring an ID and performing an attack is much higher when (1) only humans can get an ID [personhood] and (2) humans can only get one [uniqueness]. There are fewer IDs in the market and require more coordination to obtain.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
But why do I care if you’re human? Does that make you inherently more “valuable” to a protocol than a bot?
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Eddy Lazzarin đźź
@eddy
It’s a kind of audience segmentation tool + a way to enforce second-degree price discrimination. Right now, bots are not only low-value users but they can inflict negative externalities on high-value human users. In the future this could change (bots start spending) but the need to segment users, adjust “pricing” (speaking loosely), and isolate negative externalities from low-value users will remain.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
max ↑🎩
@baseddesigner.eth
yes so you’d always want to segment low value users from value users and those can be bots, agents and humans going forward
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
