I have to say I agree with both of you. We need to keep in mind what is the ultimate goal of PoH: to have a registry of all humans in the world so that they can receive a universal basic income. I agree on that it needs to be clean, and I think that currently the incentives are set so that it actually works on that way, but at the expense of having several submissions challenged by arbitrary rules (which are indeed necessary). I think we should try and find a workaround to this, and here’s what I propose:
Whenever there is a challenge, the submitter can provide additional evidence to prove that he/she is human. Maybe the challenge was legit, in the way that the actual request did not meet all the guidelines. But now, with the additional evidence, the humanity is proven. We then could allow for those humans to correct their submission, without them losing their deposit and without punishing the challenger (ie. let them keep their deposit as well: after all, they was right in challenging in the beginning). So in these cases the court should rule that the submitter shall have, say, 3 days to resubmit their application and if the new one is correct, both the submitter and the challenger shall keep their deposit; if submitted failed to submit a correct application, then challenger would win in.
1 Like