[Phase 1] HIP #49 Change of Arbitrator

PoH paid a total of 10 000$ to jurors, that is less than 1$ per registration. Putting UBI as a staking token will not significantly increase UBI price.

The fork explained in the whitepaper is forking in case of malicious decision removing the stake of malicious parties, not greedy forks (removing PNK to put another token).
A greedy fork has already been tried by Aragon and it failed. Making a Kleros copy isn’t that easy.

Can you give an example of that? If you are talking about the 10k$ of juror fees (pre-gas, so actual payouts if you count gas spent by jurors and the value of their time is way lower), this is negligible compared to the value that Kleros brings, including the creation and maintenance of the whole system.

This has nothing to do with Kleros. Kleros is fine even without disputes from PoH. The challenger ecosystem on the other hand is not. Keep in mind that 80% of lost deposits goes to challengers, only 20% goes to Kleros jurors.
The dispute rate is very low at 4%. This means that PoH pays less than 1$ per registration to Kleros jurors.

Which FUD? I just corrected the info that Vitalik was the largest holder while the coop is the largest holder.

That isn’t true, using a separate token will prevent mutualization of the security. The UBI marketcap is extremely low (0.5M) and attacks on it would be way easier than attacks on PNK.

The PoH DAO doesn’t own UBI. UBI is a project created by democracy earth owned by the UBI DAO, not PoH. UBI is one application of PoH, but far from the only one.


From what I know, the Yubiai folks are incubated and funded by Kleros.

Could you show us exactly what was built? Because I only see a paper and a token contract (and even for the token contract, it looks like Kleros handled the security part and the pools). So this doesn’t seem much for 1.2M$.


I find it hilarious all the comments about the Kleros governance being potentially against PoH, meanwhile the reality is this:

The goals of PoH & Kleros are aligned, but it appears greedy people want to give utility to $UBI by taking the utility of PNK.


How in any reality a PNK airdrop is “being aligned”? Please explain.

1 Like

The Yubiai project came alive as an evolution of UBIP2P telegram group, there were many people working with them, and the whole community participated in choosing YUBIAI as the name. Could you please clarify the date they started the Kleros incubator program with them?

1 Like

How is it against? It would allow PoH registrants to stake on the humanity court.
Can’t believe I have to even spell this out.


@clesaege thanks for take the time for answer me.
Some other reflexions from my side:

That amount was paid by individual people, not by Poh. In your view is like the registrant´s errors paid for the whole registry. Maybe I misexpressed myself, the motivation is not UBI price, is to have a diverse registry, also baing the first experience in crypto for people who needs help and not risking big amounts on jurors.

Maybe was an interpretation mistake, but calling “greedy” only because you don´t understand the motivation is one of the things that make me think we are not really aligned. If you think this is about greed or money you are not listening enough to the community.

We are not discussing the value of Kleros to the project, no one can dispute that. From my point of view, I hope that both projects continue to collaborate and find more aligned interests. As I mentioned in the first point, I believe that Kleros has as its objective the valorization of the PNK, by different means, including creating a single registry of humans. If there is a case of decisions of Poh´s DAO in which it may harm the value of the PNK, the incentives are not aligned.
What I expect from Poh´s DAO is that it has an inclusive, economic, democratic registry of unique humans, that gives opportunities to those who do not have the money and the initial knowledge, that they do not feel challenged and that be governed 100% by their own community until the last instance, even if that goes against the value of PNK

Again, this money is not being paid by PoH is being paid by humans trying to register in a registry, maybe your role requires you to see the big picture and big figures, but we are talking about humans doing this. A big part of the people from the DAO I’m talking to, works hard every day for free, mostly because they believe in this project as a meaningful project for people´s wellness, bringing new people to the ecosystem, and creating technology to solve people´s needs.

The following quotations from your reply answer your question

Answering FUD question.

It´s not the value generated for the Poh´s DAO, is the value generated to the humans registered on Poh


The examples mentioned on my reply can be googled so you get a sense of what they are about, that’s why I included them. There’s obviously way more than that, you can check http://paper.democracy.earth to see the many avenues that where explored during that time to pursuit our goals.

We have made a paper that details the pilots we held in places like Hong Kong, Colombia, Colorado and with other web3 companies like Blockstack. You may find it here: http://www.dropbox.com/s/wzf7n7n5fhf09zx/Democracy%20Earth%20Pilots%20Report.pdf?dl=0 … The pilots helped us understand how to do elections using blockchain, different models of democracy that make sense according to specific contexts and identifying the core aspect to solve: identity.

Things might seem obvious today, but they weren’t back in 2018. If you enjoy voting democratically with Proof of Humanity, we do too and take pride in the fact this is indeed the most democratic DAO in Ethereum. How to achieve this was not clear at all back then.

Kleros audited and helped polish the UBI contracts, it’s usually good practice to have external entities do that. Fun story: Clement was decidedly against the UBI token being able to stream due to security concerns, we ended up implementing that nonetheless in order to prioritize gas saving for users. Today that has become the most salient feature of UBI and it’s core to UBI v2. No security issues around the streaming feature where reported in 1.5 years so far.

1.2M in the context of the 2017/2018 bubble was actually a small raise and we didn’t do an ICO or stuff like that since it was a regulated offering in the US, keep in mind we are a Californian company. Democracy Earth had a team of 6 full time engineers / product managers / researchers employed in New York and San Francisco plus more than 100 volunteers from different cities around the world that helped us implement the pilots we held. If you get a sense what are the market rates to hire engineers there, you’d realize we did a good job.

Today, our former employees work for Wikipedia, Open Collective, RadicalXChange and other similar organizations very much in line with Democracy Earth. The influence we had online regarding how to achieve democracy on the internet must not be understated and we are definitely responsible for bringing the vast majority of users to Proof of Humanity.

1 Like

Esto es una falacia. La DAO tiene autonomia ya que es votada por los miembros (registrados humano). Kleros no forma parte de las decisiones tomadas por la DAO.


Coincido. Esta crisis comienza sin embargo con el statement de que los canales de chat en los que la comunidad invirtió su tiempo para ayudar a la gente y atender sus necesidades, fueron repentinamente declarados propiedad de la Coop. De ahí que ahora la DAO está buscando certezas respecto a que le pertenece y que no… creo que esto en sí es muy saludable para todos.

1 Like

coincido también, pero es importante educar a quienes no tienen un completo entendimiento de los procesos de toma de decisiones y sus actores. Creo que es uno de los mayores problemas que tiene hoy la DAO.

Hay una gran mayoría de usuarios que tienen una visión positiva para el cambio, que apoyan esta HIP, pero no tienen un entendimiento pleno de como funciona todo internamente, por lo que votan o hacen afirmaciones que creen entender al 100%, cuando la realidad es otra.

Por esto hago hincapié en que para avanzar con esta HIP (la cual QUIERO apoyar) se requiere mucho trabajo de investigación y entendimiento, de mecánicas de incentivos y protocolos, no solo decir “si, nos vamos de Keros”.

La propuesta debe llegar con mejoras, tanto desde el lado tecnico de implementacion, como desde el lado pedagogico. Los miembros que votan deben aprender y entender que estan votando. No solo por que “si tiene sentido” , sino desde el lado de saber cual es el impacto.


There is a confusion about the separation of daos. PoH dao should work towards the secure and affordable running of PoH. UBI dao is working towards fair value and distribution of ubi. Kleros works towards the secure operation of the court and the value of their tokens. These are separate daos and there may be occasions where they are conflicting, can’t we imagine the pursuit of ubi value could also be in conflict with poh in the same way we imagine pnk to be?

We could even make another dao with another new token with an even fairer distribution without initial funding presales from democracy earth! Surely this would then be the best token for an independent court without external organisational pressures? But see, we start to fall into conspiratorial language, describing patriotic independent sovereignty than can never be satisfied.

There are conflicting pressures however we move and we should accept that. There is no purity we will find. We are inter-dependent and should rally around our shared goals and reliance on one another. Kleros court works fine imo. The idea of having backup processes in place and an ability to fork all aspects when needed could be useful.

But jumping straight into breaking connections and replacing the court under the guise of fairness (when unfairness hasn’t really been demonstrated), independence (when we just become dependant on something else), and ubi token(when we could launch any other token on top of poh and it could also have fair claim to this) seems misguided.


I definitely don’t want Proof of Humanity DAO to break any ties with Kleros, I’m not interested in that at all and hopefully the fact that I voted in support of @clesaege in HIP 48 is a testament to that considering the fact that my vote alone with its delegations had the choice to condemn him.

I agree with @juanu that any change that implies using changeArbitrator (which is still a legitimate use of the smart contract) should be severely tested with deployed proof of concepts on testnets. I wouldn’t support this HIP moving forward without that as well. At the same time, there’s nothing wrong on proposing using this function and everyone in this community has a right to propose alternative uses of it.

As @s-p-k-y.eth says there’s much to gain from PoH, UBI and Kleros working together. But until this crisis, the boundaries between each project weren’t clear to many. This lengthy debate should help clarify those so we can move forward with a more clear understanding by the community as a whole on how things work and what is possible / not possible.

Again, I don’t view this as a bad situation but rather quite the contrary, something that will lead to a more solid project and community as a whole.

1 Like

Agreed! It’s exciting and energising when debate stirs up and people start to voice their thoughts.

Even though I don’t think this should happen I’m glad people are thinking about how it could happen and when it should happen. And making preparations and test to see what is possible. Having people ready and aware to fork is a very good thing. (I’m actually surprised we don’t see more community forks across the eth ecosystem, there’s a lot of cloned contracts but it’s rare things happen from within). As PoH gets more humans things will become more difficult and complex and opinionated. That’s great, it’s human.

This thread is very healthy and needed.


Sure, in the current design, individuals who are rejected pays for the security of the registry (maintaining a healthy challenger ecosystem).
Actually when we started studying systems like TCR, we were scarred that there wouldn’t be enough rejections to incentivize a challenger ecosystem and with the guys of Truebit studied the concept of forced errors:
Put wrong submissions on purpose in order to incentivize a challenger ecosystem. Note that in the context of PoH it would require some fees from participants even when submissions are accepted.

However we found out that we didn’t even need forced errors, as people being humans made errors without even being asked, so the challenger ecosystem ending up being funded without any forced error scheme.

We could discuss introducing a registration fee and forced errors while relaxing the policy strictness. But note that it would result in a higher average cost per user.

Note that none of this is dependent of the arbitrator.

A “greedy fork” is a fork where someone replace one token with his own. That is the term we used when discussing the Aragon fork and it is made to contrast with regular forks (like ETH with ETC, BTC with BCH or Kleros forks described in the whitepaper).

So if someone wants to put the UBI token it’s not for the price, but if someone wants to keep PNK (which funded the project) it’s because of wanting to increase its price. I don’t get this double standard.

Humans (or fake humans who will fail registration) pays Proof Of Humanity which in turn pays jurors (20%) and challengers (80%).
I understand that people do not like much losing money, but it is necessary for someone to pay for the challenger ecosystem. Otherwise people would attack it and PoH would be useless. Seeing that some large scale farming has gone undetected for sometime, I’m not even sure that the challenger ecosystem is enough incentivized.
Even people who fail their first registration ends up net positive just with the UBI they get (180$ over the 2 years registration period while the lost deposit is 130$). Note that gas fees may change that, but with V2, gas fees should become negligible (and deposits would also lower).
A way to increase the net profit of registered humans would be to increase what is given to registered humans like having them getting more airdrops.
Lowering security would make the registry less attractive, thus less likely to be used to receive airdrops.

This isn’t FUD. This is discussing security concerns and arguing that PoH currently benefits from mutualized economic security and removing that would make it less secure.

1 Like

My hypothesis is that the UBI courts will still be “plutocratic”, fewer than you think will participate (because of min stake and interest for example), there will be whales in the court, total stake is going to be low in comparison to Kleros and thus it will be more attackable, you will still see rulings you don’t like, you will find yourself saying “you can always change the rules or stake” to people mad about a ruling and the courts will still have some problems which Kleros has (but is improving for Kleros v2). It seems to me that what you expressed in your replies is mostly wishful thinking. Could you answer the 4 questions I made in my last reply?

On the other hand, PoH has a problem with farmers. Do you think farmers’ incentives are aligned with your interests? Do you worry about farmers controlling the courts? Today it seems that it takes around 1k humans to do a 51% governance attack to PoH. Let’s say an influencer with 1M followers decides to attempt to break PoH and the UBI courts by mobilizing their fans. Do you think this could be possible? What defenses have both systems against this?


what happens if we use quadratic staking for the courts? this does not need to be a change on the arbitrator contract per se but possibly using a proxy token like UBIVOTE could achieve an effect that mitigates whales. or even a quadratic PNK token could be put in place.


There are some technical challenges in making something like UBIVOTE compatible with KlerosLiquid. It’s doable of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Kleros v2 rolls out sooner than UBIVOTE based courts.

Quadratic PNK or quadratic UBI alone do not solve the issue as tokens can be split into many wallets. If you add the isRegistered() feature like UBIVOTE, that’s better protection against whales, but we will still have the problem of farmers, who might have greater incentives than the average registered human in staking. Even farming a few dozen profiles would make a big difference in your chances of getting drawn in the courts in comparison with honest humans.

My point is that people might be overestimating how decentralized UBI or UBIVOTE courts might be.


I’m not so sure KlerosLiquid can be used with quadratic tokens without any modification. At a first sight I’d say probably not.


Agreed. Human farming should definitely be an area of concern with the development of the protocol… after all we are after sybil attacks.

I don’t agree with you though that there isn’t a market for UBI jurors. The users that have spent almost every day last year on all of the PoH channels are very much likely a market that shows plenty of potential in my view and can grow if you give it space.

I think you are right, proxy tokens have deactivated methods like transfer, etc.