We started out with the idea of presenting one another’s projects but Sid had such a cool project that we went deep-dive into his reputation vault.
I’ve moved from Internet Archive to Lbry, representing a shift to supporting our colleagues.
Notes as usual by Lauren
DAO Meeting April 29, 2020
We have a new format this week. I am helping an Amazon company develop a dashboard to visualize what’s going on. The people who live in local towns nearby won’t have to work for the logging companies, they can participate in renewable farming, etc. so that you would have two aspects: Anybody in the world would be a governor, and the locals would be governers of themselves. How do you create effective action against the bulldozer and machine guns? 90% of the deforestation is illegal.
- Amazon rainforest dashboard
- Amazon residents/local people sustainable economy
- How to govern so we can prevent violation of the rights of the Amazon?
I will talk specifically about the reputation vault. When I come into this community with Grace I am not a complete stranger, and I feel that new technologies are enabling this kind of pattern. A good way to balance. Based on what they place at stake, it colors their view of the community. Money in the next decades will be based on reputation.
Can you talk about a specific use case?
Let’s say Grace wants to start a community that has nuanced conversations about the world today. She knows of other communities that are relevant to what she is doing. She creates the new community and lets the members of Lauren’s and Thomas’s community. You are not engaging them as strangers. Let’s say Thomas’s community is focused on sharing funny memes, and I don’t think it’s relevant, I am going to decline. Reputation ripples across networks.
STaking implies risk. What is the risk?
When I consent to this, it colors my view. If I think that there is something relevant to this….
Staking: if I am an idiot in Grace’s community, it doesn’t effect my rep in Grace’s community.
Some of this is really happening in Holochain, in “neighborhoods,” where you have lightly held apps. It wouldn’t make sense for my behavior to affect someone else’s behavior. Let’s assume LinkedIn and Facebook. LinkedIn allows me to my “not a bot” Facebook reputation. The tradeoff there is that if I consent to that stake, I will filter out people on their Facebook “not a bot”.
I am still unclear about what staking means.
Let’s say that I have been in a community and I am known for being really great for topics around cryptocurrencies. Then I want to go to a community around decentralized non-blockchain communities. What would the reputation look like? Is it is a number?
Each community can do their own reputation design. It is done by the community governance. There is reputation data and reputation scores, different metrics. Reputation score is like you attend 50 meetings and get a badge. You don’t want to port badges and stars. Data allows you to deal with complexity. You show up at Holochain community. They might go about their reputation design in many different ways. You show up in the community and they would say, “Grace, would you like to port your crypto reputation into this one?” You are more noticeable and can start engaging with people. You can also see other members based on their crypto reputation. Lots of peole make the mistake of reputation scores.
From the user’s perspective, showing Grace’s 2-stars would communitcate that she is low quality.
Me and Arthur Brock did a writing project together. If I am a community manager, I am going to have an attendance rating. If I am the community owner, I get to decide how to interpret someone else’s information and give them whatever reputation would be the same in my community. I can decide for myself as the community manager. I do a translation on my end. If you were part of the crypto community, but an ETH person gets more points than a Bitcoin does.
I could do my reputation algorithm in importing you.
Hedayat: it doesn’t make sense to transfer your reputation. Uber: right now, based on centralized application, if someone rates me 4, it is centralized, and everyone sees 4. Let’s go back to agent-centric. If I want to transfer this score to Rome, it would be a maybe a 5. Reputation: we need to come back to the agent-centric. You are thinking about the same culture.
One of the rules for reputation is that it is highly contextual. The way that we establish contextuality…there cannot be this universal data set. At traditional economy, there is equalibrium between supply and demand. In the long run, the tension between the peope proposing and the people declining….What are the side effects of people getting it wrong? If you are from Harvard, here are the 4 points I would like to know about, and I would port in “diligence” and “schmoozing skills.” If I want to import it from other communities, I might like Havard’s punctuality design.
The confusion is what you are calling an “agent,” which might not be an individual. The dGov group could be an agent, and they could, as a group, decide that ETH people are better than Bitcoin people. But staking doesn’t happen in the natural world.
We use “porting.” There is that element of consequence.
Let’s say dGov imports rep from Harvard. dGov says, Grace, if you are willing to import that infor from Harvard, you are going to go up in visibility.
Reputation is not transferable, like a token. People are putting their reputation at stake anytime that they open their mouths.
You might be conflating reputation with credentialing data, which is a 3rd-party verification of having done something. Reputation is credential plus value judgement.
What Thomas said is profound. If you think about participation in a group….someone could have an off day and get triggered, and so that when you enter a new community, you want to bring in your reputation as someone who is cooperative and nice. For the transmission from one community to another, that’s when you show your credentials.
So, you might be making contributions in one community but your reputation elsewhere should vary on that. It’s not just about entering a community, but work in one community could be validated across networks.
A community of practitioners might think that your reputation as a practitioner runs into decades. Where your rep as a meme creator might be just months.
If I stop working for one day, one year, I would expect that my reputation would decrease, because I am not maintaining
If I haven’t played basketball in a while I won’t be as good, or if I am a doctor and don’t keep up my with my studies. If you look at the behaviors that Facebook is encouraging, it doesn’t reflect real reputation.
I don’t understand what you mean, Sid, by “agent centric environments.”
Agent-centric move us from Apps to genetic tech and specific culture.
The way that it is being designed is bio-mimicry. That’s the way that HOlochain is going. By thinking that this is a computer system, you are translating computation concepts, rather than biological concepts.
Some of these have been modeled have been founding on Ghandi, which can also be communal and patrirachical. Some of those principles led us to where we are. The biggest point you have brought up have been around staking.
There is no scarcity of reputation. When someone new comes in, there is no scarcity.
I wouldn’t say that there is abundance.
If everyone got an A, the grades would start losing their purpose.
If I were a professor and all my students got 100% right on their test, I would give all the students an A and the teacher an A. The capacity is very high.
If we need to make sure that everyone is at a tangible skill level, that’s fine, but if the purpose of the class is to create some sort of pecking order, I need to know the different between people and their capacities.
That is shortage mentality, and that’s the sytem that we live in today. Living, growing systems get more dense. If we create articifical scarcity.
Ranking systems are differnet. Everyone could get an A in their phys ed class, but then you have the fastest runner.
If you have a game, you want to have a leaderboard. If you are creating a League of Legends team, you need to measure who is the best. From a pool of “good enough,” there is a ranking, and in systems where there is prizes and competitions, there is the best “under these conditions, on this racetrack.” There is no conflict between competency and capacity.
If we don’t develop a formal language, some distopian situations can be amplified. There was a little tech bro that got triggered in me today.