I think we may have passed the point of no return and if the two âsidesâ are in the same project, they will just keep fighting together instead of building and other projects will take the lead in the Sybil resistance space.
The version 2 may be an ideal time to fork as both sides could deploy their own version of V2 (still pointing to the V1 contract so that people do not lose their profiles).
Iâm sure the other side would have a different version of the events but may still prefer to be on a PoH going according to their wishes.
Fork PoH into 2 different projects, one handled by each side.
People registered in V1 would stay registered on both V2s until their submissions expire. Then they would need to choose on which PoH fork they register.
For the funds Iâd suggest we make a vote on DAO funds split, where people vote on which DAO it should go and give those proportionally to the amount of votes.
Okay, with a 50/50 split of funds + two implementations of PoH v2 that can somehow cooperate with each other (maybe each with their own governor, but at the same time keeping a same canonical list of humans) maybe itâs something worthy of consideration. We should think about it as a community.
I like this way of splitting the funds better. I mean, why go with 50/50 when you can allocate the funds to the project that people vouch for instead? Let the people decide what PoH to fund.
This could be done with having a proxy which would accept a profile if it is registered in at least one PoH (the 2 PoH may need to have in their rules a clause preventing people to register on both with different addresses).
This way, projects using PoH could choose which kind of system they accept.
I like this approach. If you can help us with the smart contract side of things, I can see we take care of the rest of the infra. Letâs think about it.
This is a club that lets everyone in so disagreements are sure to occur. To move forward we need to be able to deal with disagreements.
Both projects would be universal projects, eventually, people with very different ideas will join both projects. Forking is a step back that only postpones the truly hard democratic problems.
Really in favor of forking. IMO the discussions between the two âfactionsâ are way past the point of no return, and a lot of the energy is spent in the wrong places (politics).
But moreover, the focus of those groups is on totally different things. I never really understood why POH should be so closely tied to UBI, besides the fact that you donât want to allow users multi-accounting when giving away some sort of universal income. That is just one of the hundreds of use cases for a verified registry of humans, and while UBI may have seemed a cool marketing strategy to onboard a lot of people to POH (short-term incentive), I donât think a registry of humans should have ending poverty as a core purpose. That just sounds like Web3 populism to me.
Other people may not agree with my view that UBI and POH shouldnât be so closely related, and that is fine, since we may all be biased. But IMO that does not change the fact that both groups would be more productive building their vision separately and trying to make that sustainable and successful, not playing politics.
What actual investment and processes have been built to improve the quality of relationships over time? It doesnât really matter if you fork because you will still fork the underlying problem on both sides. What has been built is an ecosystem that is degenerative from a relationship point of view. That problem will become the limiting factor again if you fork or not because you donât have the processes to develop and build the consensus necessary to move forward in a regenerative way. All you are doing is creating a microcosm of the polarisation that already exists in the world. You cannot have the decentralisation of power without scaling of trust and compassion that needs to go with it. This is a process of the heart and not the mind. Fundamentally you donât trust each other enough to stay in the emotion long enough to find the 3rd way. It is all about reacting to the emotion and trying to shout the loudest to get your own way. In my time I have witnessed such extraordinary acts of reconciliation and forgiveness that there is no relationship that isnât beyond repair. The question is the common good worth more than processing the pain and fear that arrives in your disagreement? Fork away by all means. It will drive some innovation, however, neither frame of mind will likely solve decentralised identity or poverty.
The reason the two âfactionsâ are past a point of no return, in my reading and observation, is that there has been very little in the way of clear-minded mediation going on for months on end. Read through the forums and telegram. Key points are burried in overwhelming emotive arguments. Itâs tremendously hard to actually assertain what anyoneâs point is, and all involved seem to rarely be consistent in their held beliefs. Nobody is actually on the same page about anything. Doubly so for those who donât speak English or Spanish primarily. How is the average person in PoH meant to dissect all this to be able to vote on decisions?!
From my recent post:
Much of the emotional, antagonistic behavior inherant in the bipartisan environment that arose over the past year appears to be the main driver for forking, rather than it being a mindful, diplomatic resolution.
