CIP self-balancing incentive framework for dReps


Curse of M’at is a self-balancing incentive framework that transforms the way individuals engage and improve their behavior. Our system incorporates two key elements: a token of guilt (a unique and hidden reputation score for each agent), and the token of admonition (or token of shame).

With Curse of M’at, individuals receive the token of admonition randomly throughout the population. However, here’s the catch — in order to receive the admonition, an agent must willingly burn their token of admonition. The burning process may occur only if the agent’s guilt score is below a specific threshold.

This framework encourages is aimed at dReps and is supposed to encourage the delegates to take responsibility for their actions and actively work towards self-improvement.

The problem statement.

Delegates form a social network, in this network new opportunities emerge. The probability of capturing an opportunities depend on many intangible parameters, with tangibility being a function of the skill of language manipulation.

The trick is in reflecting, naming and writing: from a wicked problem to an approach to a theory to a hypothesis, SLIs and SLAs.

But what if an individual finds a pattern common in a society that he knows and the pattern is familiar and it causes enrichment of a few at the expense of everyone? Some would leave, some would argue, some would cry and some would abuse others. Corruption.

How does the curse work?

Once per each cycle M’at peers at the Amalthea, the magic crystall ball. It then sees the ugliness of the world, the wickedness of people and in its rage it sends the spirit of shame to a fraction of the whole population. Each visited by the spirit receives a token of admonition. Those who feel the presence of the admonition token have their voting power diminished. Maybe even communities are affected — who knows the true power of M’at?

But the god knows its weakness and it is ultimately — kind. So anyone who recieved a token of shame can send it to a certain contract address, from where it can be burned. There is a catch however: to let go of the shame one has to have no guilt. At least not beyond measure.

So the delegates must submit with the Amalthea and their guilt is recorded in a cryptic cuneiform that nobody can read. Only M’at can read it but they can only know if its above or below a certain parameter value. Nobody knows true guilt and only yes or no answer can be given.

The cuneiform accepts prayers of priests. If a delegate convenes with three other delegates and explains to them why their guilt is above the measure. If the covenant are convinced, they sign the prayer of admonition — the guilt score decreases as a function of number of participants in the trial. The trial has to be open — the ocean wants to know who forgives who and what is their chain of argument.

Open problems

How is guilt generated?

What happens if a user ignores their token of admonition?

What happens if we introduce this framework in Cardano?

open copy

Thank you @alexeusgr
This was a very interesting read, as a tester (not only system testing but also in RL) I found this proposal very intriguing.

With the societal impact and your open problem statements in mind I could perhaps help define some of the solutions to those.

Guilt = generated when certain thresholds within the system parameters are triggered. Testing these thresholds and living on the edge, but also have an understanding of them is imperative to be able to work with the system and not against it. Thus enabling proper feedback.
Shame = suggestive information channel back to recipient.

The system algorithm should be set up with different levels, and also introduce different admonition tokens based on different guilt thresholds and not put them all in the same bucket.

The system must not be based off on religious premonitions of do’s & dont’s or other biases, but should rely on a global human norm that is lenient, but also more effective based on the different admonition tokens that are triggered.

The system should also include a contribution token, promoting effort and value contribution which overall could override the whole admonition tokens if the means supersedes and aligns with the end-goal.

Dear @roarh I could not hope for a better comment, thank you!

I support the idea of different stages. I would solve it using inverse exponential relationship between voting power and the number of tickets the rep holds: with one token the power holds (1/1) , with two - 1/4, 3 - 1/9 and so on.

Thank you for beginning to express the reply to “what is our message?”
My reply is “don’t try to understand and beat the system, understand yourself and help improve the system instead”

I am curious about the contribution token and have disagreement at a fundamental level: the message is rather Machiavellian - no matter what the person did, the end result is all that matters. From this POV Putin is not a criminal if the war ends with annexation of whole of the lands east of Dniepr - the Russian majority would support it as a success, and the ends justify the means.

Instead I propose there might be a mechanism where if a candidate ignores the admonition token for a certain period of time their voting key is blacklisted and new dRep position is auctioned through the community. But this has some ethical considerations I am not comfortable with as well.

To study the ethical side of this question I joined the Church of the Larger Fellowship, an online congregation of Unitarian Universalist Association, a religious movement that studies the issue of do’s and don’t. We accept as a belief that dogmatism is a mode of valuation that brings a lot of sorrow to the modern world. So how do we address the issue of do’s and don’ts without it?
So as UUists we have Rites of Passage, where the person makes their personal statement for the stage of life (I state the words that I know I understand poorly, but I think they are important so I explain in my tongue what they mean to me) and we have a list of ten reasons why someone would not like it at our congregation.

My next step is to discuss this with Certification Working Group and see if a model could be built.