This Fork could be a zoom, gentlemen.
Act like such and stop harassing each other.
You are a fantástic complement.
This Fork could be a zoom, gentlemen.
Act like such and stop harassing each other.
You are a fantástic complement.
Very much against forking.
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 “factions” 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 shouldn’t 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 isn’t 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.
Yeah, that’s why the main feature of a fork would be to have a strong constitution.
Do you think the constitution applies to all sides of the fork or just the side that wants to pursue it? Honest question.
The reason the two ‘factions’ 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. It’s tremendously hard to actually assertain what anyone’s 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 don’t 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.
To be clear:
Explicitly separating PoH DAO and UBI DAO would be forking?
I’d Say that it is just ordering.
Could we do that peacefully?
POH DAO and UBI DAO are already separated, just lacking a couple of transactions.
100% against forking.
Don’t split the attention, previous work, and advancements just because less than 5 people can’t behave.
PD: I think that chart is offensive, of bad taste, and cringe. You should stop using it / delete it because it makes it really hard to take you seriously.
Who “can’t behave”? Who are these “less than 5 people”?
The two factions can’t work together. Advancement is no longer possible, or requires too much work that is wasted in politics instead of building.
Yeah I think we are in a presence of a Network Defect where the sum of both forks would be more valuable than the status quo.
Even the basis of the project, Sybil Resistance is now rejected by a short majority. We have to wake up and realize that currently the majority of voters do not even the basis of the project. It can be good for them, maybe they want a project focuses on internal politics and UBI.
I don’t, I want PoH as the most successful Sybil resistant project.
With a fork, both factions can get what they want.
I’ll be meeting with Santi in Bogota to discuss on some details of the forks.
On my side I know what we did wrong:
Our side of the fork will fix those issues.
Thank you for sharing the info and updates! I hope your discussion with Santi goes well.
A good place to bring up the Network State. It’s interesting because I was then reminded of the discussion of Recentralization a few chapters later. Obviously far in the future from now, post-fork, in our case.
I definitely think a constitution from the earlier stages would have been great. We are an excellent data point for researchers on DAOs.
I for one voted against this proposal due to the proposed implementation (retroactive) - even though I support the principle. A new proposal, more concerned with the raised problems could probably pass.
Voted against it, because it’s not enforce’able in practice without high level of centralization. Replace any account founded from “puppeteer address” with coinbase or aztec / tornado and there is no on-chain proof. The only evidence is correlated behavior, like voting and the rest (DeFi activity, etc) can be faked anyway. This brings me to another argument, which is that it’s very dangerous - PNK holders (juries) can wipe out whole clusters of people who voted against them and claim they were “puppets” with no hard evidence.
Proof of Humanity is all about “humanity”. If there are willing people who will record a video of themselves and forgo UBI for $5 - there is nothing that the protocol can do about it. DAO should ensure that that it can protect itself from such governance attacks by activism or bootstrapping (temporary) board with veto powers, say until governance puppet attack is economically unfeasible (e.g. 1m registered humans?). Until then, it’s only LARPing, anyway.
It might also be a better idea to ensure that those people can wise up about it and avoid getting screwed, like adding something about “Proof Of Humanity” or “Universal Basic Income” into phrases they speak, so they can just google it, look up the prices and do the math themselves.
Forks are fine after capture occurs - it may have happened to you, but unfortunately for you, it’s a democratic one.
Ryan made a pol.is poll to see points of agreement and of divergence within the community.
I’d advise everyone to look at it as it is important as it could enlighten whether or groups are sufficiently apart for a fork to be worth it.
Hello PoH! Choosing our priorities is important. Our priorities will determine the direction we take.
Please participate today and let us know what YOU THINK PoH priorities should be.
What is important to you? TELL US!
and make a note to keep checking in - we are going to run this experiment until 2022-10-31.
Please react to this message if you have made your contribution. We’re hoping for at least 100 participants.
Thank you! The future of PoH and democracy depends on you!
X posting from the phase 1 HIP-48 thread, in my reply to Santi
I think the best path forward is a fork coinciding with the the launch of Proof of Humanity v2, one fork which you can launch. Proof of Humanity v1 will ossify and users will choose when they resubmit their registration after expiry which fork of Proof of Humanity v2 they want to participate in. Kleros can help by deploying the contracts and providing documentation how things work, and you can launch and found that version.
One comment about forking, on the axis of ‘exit’ vs ‘voice’, these concepts are a false dichotomy. And forking represents simultaneously voice and exit, the two are not mutually exclusive. What we are doing here is using voice to coordinate ourselves to agree to disagree and go our separate ways. Its as if we are in an unhappy marriage and we don’t consider divorce because our society frowns upon it. Forking supports the idea of opt-in non-coercive systems.
Speaking as a child of divorce, many of us in the Proof of Humanity community and builders who love the vision of POH want to see it succeed are like kids in a marriage, we don’t want to see our parent’s split up, but sometimes everyone is happier with the freedom to associate and choose, especially in an abusive marriage. Being forced to stay in an abusive marriage is terrible. Why don’t we agree to split the house and the car ‘the treasury’ in half? It’s better for everyone involved to have a clean amicable divorce, no lawyers involved, no constant bickering and arguing.
Exit is a father leaving for a pack of cigarettes and never coming back.
Voice is constant bickering and arguing in an abusive marriage.
Forking is agreeing to disagree and face the reality of a dysfunctional marriage, and amicably separating. It doesn’t mean that each parent doesn’t still love it’s children, it’s better for everyone involved. It also doesn’t mean that the parents should immediately divorce without trying counseling or reconciliation, but seeing as Clement is being physically threatened and Santi feels harassed, we are at a point of no return. I’m sure that the distance of the fork/divorce may even allow the both Santi and Clement to have a function relationship and be around each other at conferences.
Ok, this is just too much hostility. Perhaps a fork is possible if we force people to pick one protocol or the other initially. You should naturally be allowed to sign up on the other, but those who are most hostile would probably refrain from doing so.
it’s an interesting game theory scenario: will the hostile fork or the inclusive fork lead to more adoption?
i think we have to prepare ourselves for a world of multiple human attestations and multiple scoring algorithms.
having two different approaches will lead to more adoption overall! the inclusive vision will be executed without the burden of satisfying the people that care about stability and security.
the security/sybil-resistance-first people will be able to pursue their vision too, and that might attract more integrations that expect the registry to be sybil-proof.
we might not lose much with the network effects, because probably a lot of people will be interested in both forks.
the end game is creating a strong and plural sybil-resistance