Understanding the risc of metagame

It would be nice to think the scenario through (“evil” group of people want to enslave people) so we can better understand the potential risk of the technology and understand the game theory behind community driven platforms . If I am a “evil” authority with lots of power how could i use this new technology to achieve my “narcissistic / egoistic” goals?
For example a group of people want to enslave the world why would they use community tools for that like slack/discord/metagame etc. ?

People in power want to stay in power and they can only stay in power if the input energy/money is less then the output energy/money. for example today the banksters have implemented a system where they are able to open the money valve whenever they want with very little effort. this system force people to use this money so the money supply can be diluted. they can take money out and put air in.

With the help of blockchain everyone can create their own money. this democratization of money leads to a system where different monetary theories/systems can compete on the free market. Before blockchain there were only a few global money systems. So now the people in power have to think about a different system how they can stay in power, because people can more easily switch from one money system to another with a click of a button. Also the taxation will become more and more difficult. It is a fact that if people have a choice the will always choose the system that most benefit them. A community centered system always benefit more people than an authority centric system. So how are they going to force people into slavery again. How does the new slavery look like? Will it be a new authority centric ID system where all data is liked to this ID and if you want to participate in public live you always need to carry your ID around and authenticate yourself. So money get less important and permission get more important. You will get permission if you score is high enough. China is leading the way and is becoming the next super power. I think the goal is to have democratic / liquid democratic decision making but the devil lies in the details.

What Metagame is doing is like what china is doing with its social credit score but with a option to port your social credits to a new system. I think this is very important that the social credit system is open source and transparent how it get distributed how it gets calculated etc. Corona has shown how important permissions are and who decides about the permissions. Corona has shown that something unimaginable like a lockdown which only happens in china can happen everywhere and people just follow. Who has decided it? Who is giving the permissions? Are the people in control? It’s difficult. Media, information, research, trust, democracy, decision making. Most people don’t have time or don’t want to take time to ask and research.

I think the basis of a robust, democratic system is the educated individual. So the goal is to educate people to become independent self thinkers and for this the basis is a transparent democratic information portal and thats why I think that it would be really great to have a web3 personal website maker and a decentralised search engine so people can post their thoughts/experiences and find each others thoughts thoughts/experiences and then on top of this a gamified reward system like metagame :slight_smile:

Umm… Wrong thread?
Did you mean to post these thoughts in the thread about profiles?

all done

Umm … can we make a distinction between MetaGamers and the bitcoin cryptoanarchists? Let me reframe …

some things that count can’t be measured, and not everything measurable counts

Neoliberal economics is great at measuring GDP input/outputs … but fail when it comes to happiness quotients. I would say that personal tokens, reflect intangible values that when persisted in tamper-evident DLTs can reveal social capital (non-rival) over time giving alternative metrics for decision making. So things like carbon footprint of individual consumption, once you put in all the blockchains back to the oil&gas industry, will reveal what driving a SUV vs electric bike (when scaled up) can do.

We then hopefully move into the realm of EVIDENCE-based policy (xref book Geek Manifesto) instead of current state of pre-existing policy-based evidencing where you look for (perhaps marginal) cases to support the status quo of pork barrelling. Money is just one example … it’s easy raising the debt ceiling but are grandkids going to appreciate the “gift”?

2 Likes

I am a DAOist . I believe that every individual will be its own DAO with its own token. There will be a bonding curve for the token and the token will be backed by the reputation of the individual. There is a 51% protection so so the majority of tokens will always be held by the user.

CO2 has an important impact on the climate but not alone. There is a CO2 saturation effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMgNYDtueKQ and also a cosmic ray influence on the cloud creation in combination with the electro magnetic fields of the sun https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html You can see a chart here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot and there you see that the sunspot activity went up in the last ~100 years. higher sun activity leads to more cosmic rays on earth which leads to less cloud creation which leads to a warmer earth. The climate is much more complicated than only CO2. This CO2 debate shows again even if you have good intention you can enslave people with an idea and they follow it. Sure to care about the earth and the climate is a good thing but you can also turn it in slavery (CO2 credits). I think much more relevant than co2 are the chemicals on the fields the trash in the water and on earth the toxic smoke, plastic, wildlife etc. CO2 is much too hyped in my opinion like corona.

I agree! I love proof based facts like a blockchain weather station where you can’t change the data the device talks directly to the weather blockchain. like a weather blockchain node. proof of work (weather data mining)

1 Like

I just have a hard time envisaging how this would work … let me retreat back a bit … at the moment in pre-DAO you

  1. get compensated for your time (base salary)
  2. remunerated for accomplishing a task (bonus)
  3. rewarded for talent (equity participation)

Now how would it work with a personal DAO? I produce digital artifacts, legal contracts etc … do I be old-school lawyer with billable hours? Or sell legal templates for a fixed fee using a generator (value of DAO reflecting professional rep)? Or is the personal DAO a reflection of what demand others might call upon me in the future? People toss the word around but it can be interpreted in so many ways that easy to miscommunicate. Help me understand what a personal DAO token does … is it my time, access to my work output, or a claim on my attention?

I think a DAO can be very flexible. You can have different tokens controlled by a DAO. for example you can have personal hour tokens. so 1 hour of your work is equal to 1 token. then you can have a governance token for your DAO. you can have a equity token of the DAO which reflects the value of all the assets controlled by the DAO etc.

I think a DAO can be very flexible. You can have different tokens controlled by a DAO.

If something means everything, then it equates to nothing. Coming from a legal background, people hate uncertainty … so writing the contract code for what you say sounds like a nightmare. Perhaps it’ll all come clear in the course of time because my current sense of DAO as implemented in software is codification of sovereign self-identity and resulting relationships, whether commercial, social or contractual, within a larger common framework (social compact or operating agreement).

I think you could do such a DAO on Aragon already. So people just buy your 1hour token and then they can exchange it for 1 hour of work. if it doesn’t work you could go the the Aragon court for example. Could you be more specific what the problems are in your opinion.

I think a DAO can be very flexible. You can have different tokens controlled by a DAO. for example you can have personal hour tokens. so 1 hour of your work is equal to 1 token. then you can have a governance token for your DAO. you can have a equity token of the DAO which reflects the value of all the assets controlled by the DAO etc.

you say there are 3 different tokens for fixed asset time-slot, governance, and equity … how can a single contract define the token for all 3 … or if you are arguing should have 3 separate contracts, then how to interchange between tokens?

I have no idea. I thought it would be possible with Aragon but currently I think there is no app which can do multiple tokens only the token app which handles the governance token. https://help.aragon.org/article/18-tokens Perhaps soon there will be a app which can handle multiple tokens. Exchange tokens can be done via tools like uniswap or a bonding curve or you have a Aragon App where you can exchange one token for another like https://github.com/1Hive/token-request-app

I think you can have 5, 10 10908 tokens in your dao whatever you like. But as I said i have no clue how it works technically but i believe that in the near future it will be possible with a tool like Aragon to manage multiple tokens with a DAO.

What you described below this is exactly why I think projects like MetaGame can never turn out too bad. Even if it was authoritarian, it can only be as malevolent as the competing metagames allow.
So the ability for people to switch away is keeping it in check.

The biggest problem as you mention is when actual governments start enforcing it, and if they closed the system. It can then go too far into surveillance & black hat gamified.

The bottom half of the Octalysis Framework is basically negative motivational drive activation techniques which should be used in moderation. If someone decides to optimize eg. just for maximum productivity, it can turn out really ugly.
You can see some of this with freemium games, FarmVille was one of the first games to really pioneer this extremely “data driven” approach to gamification, maximizing play time at the cost of getting people to feel bad if they don’t play - literally getting mothers (!non-gamers!) addicted.

Terrible, but as long as a player is free to move from metagame to metagame, this should not be a problem.

But then

When I said people can use these technologies in bad way, I didn’t mean just MetaGame but all this crypto stuff in general.
A DAO with zk-snarks sounds awesome…

But, do we want it in the hands of narco cartels, child & organ traffickers and whonot?
Suddenly, having the ability to start “unstoppable organizations” doesn’t sound all that appealing.
ISIS doing an ICO?
No bueno.

The problem with moral rights, particularly the right of integrity, is how to get immoral people to follow the wishes of the authors. With DLT, narrow rights to prevent defacing is simply a matter of rolling back history. What you are talking about is broad moral rights, the refusal to be associated with certain classes or activities … this is hard because of two conflicting rights, pseudonymity which means your identity is hidden or deliberately out of reach of traditional legal recourse.

The efficient market theory as applied to people perhaps

There would have to be a governance system which maybe prevented bad actors from participating? Sort of like an Oracle. Tie it into the several tokens DAO Idea which @Mauro mentioned in an earlier post. If the populous agrees that these people are in fact bad actors, it would affect the value of their personal token.

The only problem here is this assumes said bad actors would actually on-board into this new system.

Brings up another point, what’s to stop these bad actors from manipulating the system by securing “votes” in a dictatorship?

Anyway, I found this thread by accident. I have never thought about a personal DAO before though, an interesting theory.

We’ll have ways of filtering bad actors, but the DAOs & tools themselves will mostly be open source.
So I’m not talking about bad people joining MetaGame, but bad people starting their own metagames. :grimacing:

1 Like

You describing a dictatorship where all the people in the military and police follows blindly the leader. I think if you take china for example and the Tiananmen Square Incident 1989 then you see that the government was taking young soldiers from all over china and lied to them that the protesters (mostly peaceful students) were very dangerous and have weapons etc. This was 1989. It gets more and more difficult that one singe authority will be able to manipulate because there are more and more opinions and channels available. I don’t say it’s not possible i just say that will get harder for authorities.

I ask myself why do people follow ISIS? I think because they are hungry, they need to feed their family and have very to no other options to survive / earn money. There are people (western countries or other peaceful countries) which think what ISIS is doing is good but when they start taking part most of them want to leave ISIS very soon. From the outside it looks cool/necessary for some people and perhaps they would donate money to them just to disrupt the status quo. What I just think is that a ZK Snark DAO is less efficient and productive than an open DAO because an open DAO will have a network effect and a private DAO not. Also there are more people who want to live in peace than to disrupt the status quo. so taking both together i think a private DAO with few destructive people and little network effect will less likely succeed in the long term vs a open DAO with lots of peaceful people and a good network effect. the problem of private daos is that they don’t trust each other (daos-daos) even within the dao they don’t rust each other so they will depend on a few decision makers. open daos are much more robust because they don’t rely on a few decision makers. you can only walk very slow in the dark with few lights (decision makers). a open dao walks also in the dark but with lots of lights (open network where everyone can make decisions). The only thing which can compete against an open DAO is a more efficient open DAO. and as long as their is no destructive open dao with huge network effects i think open DAOs will bring more freedom to people.

1 Like