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 am guilty of this. The reason for imprecision is that I don't know what will work in practice.
See Vitalik's take that multiple PoP solutions can complement each other.
Gitcoin Passport's approach follows this: Let users decide how to prove their personhood.

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

I am guilty of this. The reason for imprecision is that I don't know what will work in practice.
See Vitalik's take that multiple PoP solutions can complement each other.
Gitcoin Passport's approach follows this: Let users decide how to prove their personhood.
https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/07/24/biometric.html

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

Or instead of hedging solutions because we know none of them work, we can choose solutions that are correct by construction but don’t have strict humanity requirements.

Or instead of hedging solutions because we know none of them work, we can choose solutions that are correct by construction but don’t have strict humanity requirements. https://warpcast.com/danfinlay/0x2764ba64