Authors: E. Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, Vitalik Buterin
Authors: E. Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, Vitalik Buterin
The Taoist is the mystery of all things, the treasure of the good man, and the protection of the bad man
E. Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, Vitalik Buterin
May 2022
The Taoist is the mystery of all things, the treasure of the good man, and the protection of the bad man
——Chapter 62 of Laozi
Decentralized Society: Finding the Soul of Web3 is the latest paper by Vitalik et al. This paper describes how to achieve a richer and more diverse ecosystem through soul-bound tokens, namely Decentralized Society (DeSoc) and Key decomposable property rights and enhanced governance mechanisms in a decentralized society. Therefore, the DAOrayaki community specially translated this article and organized multiple podcasts for in-depth analysis. Due to the length of the full text, we will distribute it in three parts: part one, part two, and part two.
Summary
Summary
Today, Web3 is more about expressing transferable, financialized assets than about encoding social trust relationships. Yet many core economic activities, such as unsecured lending and building a personal brand, are built on lasting, non-transferable relationships. In this paper, we illustrate how non-transferable “soulbound” tokens (“soulbound” tokens (SBTs) representing “soulbound” commitments, credentials, and relationships can encode the real economy’s web of trust to establish provenance and of reputation. More importantly, SBTs can realize other more and more application scenarios, such as recovery of community wallets, anti-virus governance, decentralized mechanisms, and new markets with decomposable and shared rights.
This dependency is reflected in:
In less than ten years, Web3 has shocked the world by building a unique and flexible parallel financial system that has never been seen before. Fundamental elements of crypto and economics, such as public-key cryptography, smart contracts, proof-of-work, and proof-of-stake, bring about a complex and open ecosystem for financial transactions.
However, the economic value of financial transactions is generated by humans and their relationships. Since Web3 lacks the foundational elements that represent this social identity, it fundamentally relies on the centralized Web2 structure it seeks to outperform, thus replicating its limitations.
This dependency is reflected in:
Most NFT artists rely on centralized platforms like OpenSea and Twitter to promise scarcity and initial provenance.
Many Web3 players rely on custodial wallets managed by centralized entities such as Coinbase or Binance. Decentralized key management systems are not friendly enough for anyone but a few geeks.
Many Web3 players rely on custodial wallets managed by centralized entities such as Coinbase or Binance. Decentralized key management systems are not friendly enough for anyone but a few geeks.
Furthermore, due to the lack of a native Web3 identity, todays DeFi ecosystem cannot support activities that are prevalent in the real economy, such as undercollateralized loans, or simple contracts like apartment leases. In this paper, we demonstrate that even small steps toward representing social identity with soul-bound tokens can overcome these limitations, moving the entire ecosystem toward re-establishing a Web3 world that mirrors native human relationships. The market has taken a big step forward.
Furthermore, due to the lack of a native Web3 identity, todays DeFi ecosystem cannot support activities that are prevalent in the real economy, such as undercollateralized loans, or simple contracts like apartment leases. In this paper, we demonstrate that even small steps toward representing social identity with soul-bound tokens can overcome these limitations, moving the entire ecosystem toward re-establishing a Web3 world that mirrors native human relationships. The market has taken a big step forward.
The climax of this description is the vision of DeSoc - a co-determined sociability in which souls and communities come together from the bottom up as emergent properties of each other, at different levels Co-create complex network products, including complex intelligence.
We start by explaining the basic elements of DeSoc, which revolve around accounts (or wallets) holding non-transferable (initially public) soul-bound tokens (SBTs), representing commitments, certificates, and relationships. This token is like an extended resume issued by other wallets that can attest to these social connections.
We then describe a ladder of increasingly powerful applications implemented in the social stack by these fundamental elements of DeSoc, including:
establish source
Unlocking Undercollateralized Lending Markets Through Reputation
Realize decentralized key management
Frustration and neutralization of coordinated strategic behavior
Measuring decentralization
Create new types of marketplaces with disaggregated, shared rights and permissions
The climax of this description is the vision of DeSoc - a co-determined sociability in which souls and communities come together from the bottom up as emergent properties of each other, at different levels Co-create complex network products, including complex intelligence.
Finally, we answer several possible concerns and objections, and compare with other identity paradigms familiar in the Web3 space, acknowledging that our vision is only a first step, but still a step forward for programmable privacy and communication. We then consider technical avenues to guide our imagined visions. On this basis, we look forward to DeSocs potential to redirect Web3 to a deeper, legitimate and transformative path from a more philosophical perspective.
Finally, we answer several possible concerns and objections, and compare with other identity paradigms familiar in the Web3 space, acknowledging that our vision is only a first step, but still a step forward for programmable privacy and communication. We then consider technical avenues to guide our imagined visions. On this basis, we look forward to DeSocs potential to redirect Web3 to a deeper, legitimate and transformative path from a more philosophical perspective.
The key foundational element were talking about is accounts, or wallets, holding publicly visible, non-transferable (but potentially revokable by issuer) tokens. We refer to accounts as “souls” and the tokens held by accounts as “soul tokens” (SBTs). Despite our strong interest in privacy, we initially assumed public because, as a concept, it was technically easier to verify, even if constrained by the kinds of tokens people were willing to share publicly. Later in this paper, we introduce the concept of programmable privacy for richer use cases.
Imagine a world where most participants have souls that store SBTs, corresponding to a series of relationships, memberships, and credentials. For example, a person might have a soul that stores SBTs representing educational credentials, employment history, or a string of hashes representing their writings or artwork. In their simplest form, these SBTs are self-certifying, similar to how we share information about ourselves in resumes. But the real power of this mechanism comes when SBTs held by one soul can be issued or certified by other souls who are counterparties to these relationships. These counterparty “souls” can be individuals, companies or institutions. For example, the Ethereum Foundation could be a soul that issues SBTs to souls that attend developer conferences. A university can be a soul that issues SBTs to its graduates. A stadium can be a soul that hands out SBTs to longtime Dodgers fans.
Imagine a world where most participants have souls that store SBTs, corresponding to a series of relationships, memberships, and credentials. For example, a person might have a soul that stores SBTs representing educational credentials, employment history, or a string of hashes representing their writings or artwork. In their simplest form, these SBTs are self-certifying, similar to how we share information about ourselves in resumes. But the real power of this mechanism comes when SBTs held by one soul can be issued or certified by other souls who are counterparties to these relationships. These counterparty “souls” can be individuals, companies or institutions. For example, the Ethereum Foundation could be a soul that issues SBTs to souls that attend developer conferences. A university can be a soul that issues SBTs to its graduates. A stadium can be a soul that hands out SBTs to longtime Dodgers fans.
Soul is a natural way for an artist to stake his prestige on a work. When issuing tradable NFTs, artists can issue NFTs from their souls. The more SBTs an artists soul carries, the easier it is for buyers to identify that the soul belongs to the artist, and thus determine the legitimacy of the NFT. Artists can go a step further by posting a linked SBTs in their soul, proving that a certain NFT is a member of that collection, and vouching for any scarcity limits the artist wishes to set. Souls will thus create a reliable, on-chain way to stake and build reputation on an objects provenance and scarcity.
4.1 Art and soul
Soul is a natural way for an artist to stake his prestige on a work. When issuing tradable NFTs, artists can issue NFTs from their souls. The more SBTs an artists soul carries, the easier it is for buyers to identify that the soul belongs to the artist, and thus determine the legitimacy of the NFT. Artists can go a step further by posting a linked SBTs in their soul, proving that a certain NFT is a member of that collection, and vouching for any scarcity limits the artist wishes to set. Souls will thus create a reliable, on-chain way to stake and build reputation on an objects provenance and scarcity.
The scope of application is not only art, but also extends to services, rentals and any market based on scarcity, reputation or authenticity. An example of the latter is verifying the authenticity of so-called factual records, such as photos and videos. As deepfake technology advances, direct human and algorithmic checks will become less and less able to detect authenticity. While the addition of blockchain allows us to track when a particular work was made, SBTs will allow us to track social provenance, providing us with rich social context into the soul of published works—their membership, A combination of relationships, credentials—and their social distance from the work. Fake can be easily identified because these artworks were not produced in the corresponding time and social context, while authentic artworks (such as photos) are attested by famous photographers. While current technologies decontextualize cultural products such as pictures and subject them to uncontrolled viral attacks in the absence of social context, SBTs can recontextualize these items and make the soul Being able to leverage the trust relationships that already exist within the community as a meaningful backstop to protect the reputation.
The scope of application is not only art, but also extends to services, rentals and any market based on scarcity, reputation or authenticity. An example of the latter is verifying the authenticity of so-called factual records, such as photos and videos. As deepfake technology advances, direct human and algorithmic checks will become less and less able to detect authenticity. While the addition of blockchain allows us to track when a particular work was made, SBTs will allow us to track social provenance, providing us with rich social context into the soul of published works—their membership, A combination of relationships, credentials—and their social distance from the work. Fake can be easily identified because these artworks were not produced in the corresponding time and social context, while authentic artworks (such as photos) are attested by famous photographers. While current technologies decontextualize cultural products such as pictures and subject them to uncontrolled viral attacks in the absence of social context, SBTs can recontextualize these items and make the soul Being able to leverage the trust relationships that already exist within the community as a meaningful backstop to protect the reputation.
How did unsecured community lending work? In the beginning, we wanted souls to only carry SBTs with information they were willing to share publicly, such as information in a resume. While limited in scope, this may be sufficient for in-community lending experiments, especially if SBTs are issued by reputable institutions. For example, a portfolio of SBTs showing certain programming credentials, a few conferences attended, and work history might be an advantage for Soul to get venture capital (or raise seed money) for them. Such credentials and social ties have informally played an important, but opaque, role in the allocation of capital such as venture capital.
An ecosystem of SBTs could create a censorship-resistant, bottom-up alternative to the top-down commercialized social credit system. SBTs representing educational credentials, work histories, and lease contracts can be durably recorded as credit-related histories, allowing “souls” to pledge good standing to avoid collateral requirements and obtain loans. Loans and lines of credit can be represented as non-transferable but revocable SBTs, so they are nested in other SBTs of the soul - an indivisible collateral of reputation - until they are repaid and subsequently destroyed; or A better way is to replace it with a proof of repayment. SBTs offer helpful security properties: non-assignability prevents assignment or hiding of outstanding loans, while a rich ecosystem of SBTs ensures that borrowers who attempt to evade a loan (perhaps by creating a new soul) will lack SBTs come to meaningfully stake their reputation.
The ease with which SBTs can be used to calculate public debt will open up the borrowing market. New correlations between SBTs and repayment risk would emerge, giving rise to better lending algorithms for predicting creditworthiness, thereby reducing reliance on centralized, opaque credit scoring infrastructure. Moreover, borrowing and lending may occur in social connections. In particular, SBTs will form the basis of community lending practices, similar to those pioneered by Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, where members of a social network agree to support each others debts. Since all SBTs of a soul represent memberships in different social groups, participants can easily discover other souls who will become important co-participants in the group lending project. Commercial lending is a “borrow and forget” repayment model, while community lending may adopt a “borrow and help” approach—combining working capital and human capital with a higher rate of return.
How did unsecured community lending work? In the beginning, we wanted souls to only carry SBTs with information they were willing to share publicly, such as information in a resume. While limited in scope, this may be sufficient for in-community lending experiments, especially if SBTs are issued by reputable institutions. For example, a portfolio of SBTs showing certain programming credentials, a few conferences attended, and work history might be an advantage for Soul to get venture capital (or raise seed money) for them. Such credentials and social ties have informally played an important, but opaque, role in the allocation of capital such as venture capital.
4.3 Dont lose your soul
Community restoration as a security mechanism embodies the identity theory proposed by Georg Simmel, a sociologist and founder of social network theory in the early 20th century, that individual identities emerge from the intersection of social groups, as Social groups emerge from the intersection of individuals as well. The maintenance and restoration of encrypted assets to Soul requires the consent of the Soul network. By embedding security in sociality, souls can always regenerate their keys through community recovery, which prevents the theft (or sale) of souls: since the seller needs to prove that what is being sold is a restored relationship, anyone who sells souls Attempts lack credibility.
Social recovery is a great starting point for security, but has several drawbacks in terms of security and usability. A user curates a group of guardians and empowers them through a majority to change the keys to their wallets. Guardians can be individuals, institutions, or a combination of other wallets. The problem is that users have to find a balance between having a relatively large number of guardians and ensuring that guardians come from unrelated social circles to avoid collusion. Additionally, guardians may die, relationships sour, or simply lose touch, resulting in frequent, attention-draining updates. While social recovery avoids single points of failure, successful recovery depends on curating and maintaining trusting relationships with a majority of guardians.
A more robust solution would be to link soul restoration to soul membership in inter-communities, without planning but maximizing the use of extensive real-time relationships for safety. To recap, SBTs represent memberships in different communities. Some of these communities - such as employers, clubs, colleges or churches - may be more off-chain in nature, while others - such as participating in protocol governance or DAOs - may be more on-chain in nature. In the community recovery model, recovery of a souls private key requires the consent of a majority of members from the souls community (a random subset).
Like social recovery, we assume that souls have access to secure off-chain communication channels where authentication can take place - through conversation, face-to-face, or shared secrets. Such communication channels require greater bandwidth (theoretically, the ability to carry richer information entropy) than the computation of on-chain bots or SBTs themselves. In fact, we can think of SBTs as essentially representing participation in, or access to, such real (ie, high-bandwidth) communication channels.
Actionable details require experimentation. For example, how guardians are selected and how much guardian consent is required are key security parameters that require further research. However, with such a rich information base, community recovery should be computationally possible, with increased security as souls join more diverse communities and form more meaningful relationships.
Community restoration as a security mechanism embodies the identity theory proposed by Georg Simmel, a sociologist and founder of social network theory in the early 20th century, that individual identities emerge from the intersection of social groups, as Social groups emerge from the intersection of individuals as well. The maintenance and restoration of encrypted assets to Soul requires the consent of the Soul network. By embedding security in sociality, souls can always regenerate their keys through community recovery, which prevents the theft (or sale) of souls: since the seller needs to prove that what is being sold is a restored relationship, anyone who sells souls Attempts lack credibility.
4.4 Souldrops
Computes a collection of SBTs for a spirit to distinguish unique souls from possible bots, and denies any voting rights to a spirit suspected of being a witch.
The soul airdrop is calculated based on the airdrop of SBTs and other tokens in the soul. For example, a DAO that wants to convene a community within a particular Layer 1 protocol could airdrop to developers holding SBTs that accounted for 3 of the past 5 meetings attendance, or other tokens representing attendance such as POAPs. The protocol can also programmatically weight the placement of tokens in a combination of various SBTs. We could imagine a non-profit with a mission to plant trees that stakes governance tokens to “souls” who hold a combination of environmental action SBTs, gardening SBTs, and carbon sequestration tokens — perhaps to carbon sequestration token holders More tokens.
The soul airdrop could also introduce new incentives to encourage community participation. Airdropped SBTs can be designed to be soul bound for a period of time, but eventually vested as transferable tokens over time. vice versa. Holding transferable tokens for a period of time unlocks the rights to SBTs, giving the protocol further governance rights. SBTs open up a wealth of possibilities to experiment with different mechanisms to maximize community engagement and other goals such as decentralization. We discuss further below.
4.5 DAO composed of soul
Distributed Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are virtual communities brought together around a common purpose, coordinated through smart contract voting on a public blockchain. While DAOs have great potential for coordinating global communities, they are vulnerable to Sybil attacks, where a user can have multiple wallets to accumulate voting power, or in less complex one-coin-one-vote governance, simply hoard Tokens accumulate 51% of voting rights and disenfranchise the other 49% of holders.
DAOs can mitigate Sybil attacks on SBTs in several ways, namely:
Computes a collection of SBTs for a spirit to distinguish unique souls from possible bots, and denies any voting rights to a spirit suspected of being a witch.
Giving more voting power to souls with more prestigious SBTs - such as job or education proofs, licenses or certificates.
Publish specialized “proof-of-personhood” SBTs that could help other DAOs deploy resistance to witches more easily.
Checks for correlations between SBTs held by souls that support a particular vote, and applies lower vote weights to highly connected voters.
). SBTs have the flexibility to represent and extend such nuanced property rights in physical and virtual assets, while encouraging new experiments. Here are a few use cases:
We explore this idea mathematically in more detail in the appendix, where we introduce a new foundational element called the relevance score. This notion of relevance discounting can be extended to structured deliberation sessions. For example, a DAO that is easily captured by the majority could calculate SBTs to maximize the ability to bring together diverse members in talks, ensuring that the voices of the minority are heard.
DAOs can also rely on SBTs to prevent strategic actions such as vampire attacks. In this attack, a DAO—usually a related DeFi protocol with economic value—by copying another DAO’s open source code, plagiarizing other people’s research and development, and then using tokens to lure users’ liquidity into it. The DAO could do this by first creating a specification around airdrops of souls (perhaps holding specific SBTs), only airdropping souls that might be resistant to Sybil attacks and providing liquidity, and then withholding those that divert their liquidity in a vampire attack Airdrop of soul. The same mechanism doesnt work for wallet airdrops, as holders can spread liquidity across many wallets in order to confuse their traces of liquidity.
DAOs can also use SBTs to make leadership and governance programmatically responsive to their communities. Leadership roles can change dynamically as the composition of the community changes—this is reflected in changes in the distribution of SBTs among the souls of members. A subset of members can be promoted to potential management roles based on their intersectionality and reach across multiple communities within the DAO. Protocols that value community cohesion can use SBTs to maintain the centrality of the soul across circles. In addition, DAOs can choose to have certain combinations of characteristics have a higher probability of entering the governance layer than others, such as diversity in zip codes or DAOs that span more diverse interests.
4.6 Measuring Decentralization from the Perspective of Pluralism
When analyzing real-world ecosystems, it is best to measure how decentralized the ecosystem is. To what extent is the ecosystem truly decentralized, and to what extent is it “false” and in fact dominated by a single person or small group of actors acting together?
Two popular decentralization metrics are Balaji Srinivasans Nakamoto coefficient, which measures how many different entities would need to combine to collect 51% of resources; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index. –Hirschman index), which measures market concentration in antitrust, calculated by summing the squares of the market shares of market participants. However, none of these approaches has addressed the key issues of what is the right source of measurement, how to deal with partial coordination, and how to deal with the gray areas that form distinguishable entities.
For example, nominally independent companies may have many common large shareholders, have directors who are friends with each other, or be regulated by the same government. In the context of token protocols, it is highly inaccurate to measure fragmentation of token holdings by looking at on-chain wallets, as many people have multiple wallets and some wallets (like exchanges) represent many people . Furthermore, even when addresses can be traced back to unique individuals, these people may be socially related groups, prone to accidental coordination (best case) or deliberate collusion (worst case). A better measure of decentralization should be able to capture social dependencies, weak ties, and strong identities.
Miners and mining pool operators, who account for 90% of the total Bitcoin supply, sat together and attended the meeting.
SBTs support a different way of measuring the level of decentralization (or pluralism) in a DAO, protocol, or network.
As a first step, the protocol could limit token voting to souls that are more Sybil-resistant (or have richer SBTs).
In the second step, the protocol can check the correlation between the SBTs held by different souls, and discount their votes if the souls share a large number of SBTs (pool them and distinguish them separately). (We explore the latter idea in more detail mathematically in Appendix A, where we introduce a new foundational element called the relevance score).
As a third step, to zoom in and understand the decentralization of the entire network, we can measure the correlation between SBTs held by souls at different layers of the network stack - measuring voting, token ownership, governance correlation communication and even control over computing resources.
SBTs allow us to start measuring the degree of decentralization of an interoperable and layered ecosystem, which is very difficult to measure today. There is also the big question of what formula best captures what we want to measure and is least susceptible to manipulation. We would have many questions about how to examine the relationship between SBTs - make some SBTs gain more weight than others, discount nested SBTs, or take into account the composition of transferable tokens within a soul . However, with a rich ecosystem of souls and SBTs, there will be more data to perform these calculations and move towards meaningful decentralization.
4.7 Compound assets
DAOs typically own assets, or are organized around owning an asset, both in the virtual and physical worlds. So far, the scope of Web3 has been largely limited to a small class of property in which all rights are fully transferable: tokens, NFTs, artwork, first editions or rare manuscripts such as the US Constitution, etc. But the emphasis on transferability works against Web3, making it unable to represent and support some of the simplest and most common property contracts today, such as apartment leases. In the Roman legal tradition, property rights were considered to be governed by use ("usus"), consume or destroy ("abusus") and revenue ("fructus") of the right composition. All these rights rarely belong together to the same owner. For example, an apartment lease grants the lessor a limited right to use ("usus"), but does not grant the destruction of apartments ("abusus"), condos for sale ("fructus"), and even the unfettered right to transfer the right to use (sublease). Rights in immovable property (land) are usually subject to a series of restrictions on private use, grants of public use rights, restrictions on sales rights, and even rights to purchase through eminent domain. They are also often backed by a mortgage, transferring some financial value to the lender.
Future asset innovations are unlikely to be built on the fully transferable private property so far imagined. Instead, innovation will depend on the ability to decompose property rights to match the characteristics of existing property institutions and encode richer constructs. Corporations and other organizational forms evolved precisely to reorganize property rights in more creative ways—for example, allowing employees to use exclusive facilities ("usus"), but reserves the right for managers to alter or damage assets ("abusus"), while paying the most financial benefits to shareholders ("fructus"). SBTs have the flexibility to represent and extend such nuanced property rights in physical and virtual assets, while encouraging new experiments. Here are a few use cases:
Allows access to privately or publicly controlled resources (eg, homes, cars, museums, parks, and virtual equivalents). Transferable NFTs dont capture this use case well, because access is often conditional and non-transferable: if I trust you to go into my backyard and use it as a recreational space, it doesnt mean I trust you to Sublicense this license to others.
Data cooperatives, where SBTs grant access to data to researchers while instantiating members rights to grant access (perhaps through quadratic voting) and bargaining for economic rights to discoveries and intellectual property resulting from research. Well explore this further in Chapter 5, Plural Sensemaking.
Experiment with local currencies and create rules that give higher value to currencies held and consumed by souls who live in a particular region or belong to a particular community.
Of course, some utopian scenarios can also be considered. The immigration system can be licensed with immigration SBTs. Regulatory capture (Annotation: Regulatory capture, describes the authority in making policy, the interests of one interest group over the interests of all) can be achieved through nested community tokens, in this case, homeowners have a disproportionate vote right to obstruct housing construction. SBTs can redline automatically. As we discuss further below, these situations should be considered in the context of currently opaque top-down licensing and discrimination. SBTs will make discrimination more transparent and therefore potentially challenged.
experiments in market designs such as Harberger taxation and SALSA (Self-Assessed Licenses at Auctions), where asset holders post a self-assessed price at which anyone else can buy the asset from them, And a tax proportional to that self-assessed price must be paid periodically to maintain control. SBTs can be used to create more nuanced versions of SALSA—for example, where participation rights are community-approved to reduce strategic behavior from within or outside the community.
Design of experimental democratic mechanisms, such as quadratic voting. Holders of SBTs representing community membership can vote quadratically on parameters such as incentives and tax rates. Ultimately, markets and politics are not separate design spaces; SBTs can become a major part of a technology stack, enabling the exploration of an entire space where these two categories intertwine. Another such intersection, such as the provision of public goods through secondary fundraising.
Of course, some utopian scenarios can also be considered. The immigration system can be licensed with immigration SBTs. Regulatory capture (Annotation: Regulatory capture, describes the authority in making policy, the interests of one interest group over the interests of all) can be achieved through nested community tokens, in this case, homeowners have a disproportionate vote right to obstruct housing construction. SBTs can redline automatically. As we discuss further below, these situations should be considered in the context of currently opaque top-down licensing and discrimination. SBTs will make discrimination more transparent and therefore potentially challenged.
refer to
refer to
Microsoft Corporation & RadicalXChange Foundation, glen@radicalxchange.org. Glen vinicula este documento a su Alma.
Flashbots Ltd.,We thank Audrey Tang, Phil Daian, Danielle Allen, Leon Erichsen, Matthew Prewitt, Divya Siddarth, Jaron Lanier, and Robert Miller for their thoughtful feedback and comments. All errors and opinions are solely our own.
Ethereum Foundation, vitalik.buterin@ethereum.org.
puja@ashbots.net. Puja dedicates this literature to his grandmother Satya, whose love and light will continue to shine on countless souls
We chose this set of attributes not because they are obviously the most desirable feature set, but because they are easy to implement in the current environment and support a lot of functionality. We will explore programmable private SBTs in Section 5.3.
Note, however, that in principle legal names could be denoted as SBTs: a family name would be a member SBT of a family group, and a given name could be one of the SBTs given to children by parents. In fact, if other familial or related persons gifted member SBTs to the new child, a richer notion of names would be readily denoted.
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1264948490834247681 and https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1265252184813420544Evidence from informal Twitter surveys suggests that the idea of taking diversity into account in decision-making mechanisms is already considered intuitive.
Not enough data accumulated: https://www.technologyreview-com/2021/06/17/1026519/racial-bias-noisy-data-credit-scores-mortgage-loans-fairness-machine-learning/
Social Recovery: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html
Matthew Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
Data Cooperative: https://www.noemamag.com/a-view-of-the-future-of-our-data/
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo138501033.html
