翻译3-Decentralized Society Finding Web3 Soul

Posted on

§8 COMPARISONS AND LIMITATIONS

While the range of identity frameworks proposed is almost limitless, there are four particularly prominent and adjacent paradigms widely discussed in the web3 space that merit comparison: the dominant “legacy” identity ecosystem, the pseudonymous economy, proof of personhood, and verifiable credentials. Each paradigm highlights important contributions and challenges for future development of the social identity paradigm we advocate, and we use such limitations as a springboard for exploring future directions. All that considered, we also explain why we believe our social identity primitives of Souls and soulbound tokens are a more promising path forward for privacy regimes.

虽然提出的身份框架的范围几乎是无限的，但在 web3 空间中有四个特别突出和相邻的范式被广泛讨论，值得比较：占主导地位的“传统”身份生态系统、假名经济、人格证明和可验证的凭证。每个范式都突出了我们所倡导的社会认同范式未来发展的重要贡献和挑战，我们将这些限制作为探索未来方向的跳板。考虑到所有这些，我们还解释了为什么我们相信我们的灵魂和灵魂令牌的社会身份原语是隐私制度的一条更有希望的前进道路。

8.1 Legacy

Legacy identity systems rely on pieces of papers or identity cards issued and mediated by a 3rd party (a government, university, employer, etc). Provenance is established by calling up the 3rd party for a confirmation. While the legacy system has an interesting set of properties we should understand more deeply, such systems are wildly ineffcient and do not lend themselves to composability or computation for rapid, effcient coordination. Moreover, these systems lack social context and makes Souls reliant on a centralized 3rd party to confirm membership to a community, rather than the embedding community. For example, most government issued IDs eventually trace back to a birth certificate issued on the authority of a medical doctor and family members, who are the ultimate source of truth and leave out many equally meaningful social connections that—taken together—o￾er far stronger validation. In fact, when centers of concentrated power seek strong identification (e.g., getting a security clearance from a major government) they rarely rely on such documents, instead turning to interviews in social networks. Thus such legacy identity systems tend to concentrate power in the issuer and in those who can undertake the due diligence to get stronger verification, who in turn become calci￾ed and unreliable bureaucracies. A crucial design goal of DeSoc is ensuring that the security requirements of government IDs can be met and exceeded, allowing horizontal networks to make greater security available to all users and through a range of social substrates.

传统身份系统依赖于由第三方（政府、大学、雇主等）发行和调解的文件或身份证。通过致电第三方进行确认来确定出处。虽然遗留系统具有我们应该更深入地理解的一组有趣的属性，但这些系统效率极低，并且不适合用于快速、有效协调的可组合性或计算。此外，这些系统缺乏社会背景，使得 Souls 依赖于一个集中的第三方来确认社区的成员身份，而不是嵌入社区。例如，大多数政府颁发的身份证最终都可以追溯到由医生和家庭成员授权签发的出生证明，他们是真相的最终来源，并且遗漏了许多同样有意义的社会联系——加在一起——远远超过更强的验证。事实上，当权力集中的中心寻求强有力的身份证明（例如，获得主要政府的安全许可）时，他们很少依赖此类文件，而是转向社交网络中的采访。因此，此类遗留身份系统倾向于将权力集中在发行者和那些能够进行尽职调查以获得更强大验证的人身上，而这些人反过来又会成为刻板和不可靠的官僚机构。DeSoc 的一个关键设计目标是确保能够满足和超过政府 ID 的安全要求，允许横向网络通过一系列社交基础为所有用户提供更高的安全性。

8.2 Pseudonymous Economy

The vision of a society based around combining reputation systems with zero knowledge proof mechanisms to preserve privacy has been most widely promoted by Balaji Srinivasan, who coined and popularized the phrase “pseudonymous economy.” His early version emphasizes the use of pseudonyms to avoid discrimination and evade “cancel culture” by social mobs that seek to harm a person’s reputation and break their social ties. It envisions people accumulating transferable zero-knowledge (ZK) attestations in their wallets and evading reputational attacks by transferring a subset of attestations to new wallets, or splitting the attestations amongst multiple wallets, presumably without traceability. In culling attestations to port, a person chooses the level of desired pseudonymity in the new account, weighing a tradeoff between more anonymity (porting fewer attestations) or more distribution to their social network (porting over more attestations).

The practical difference between typical pseudonymous economy proposals and DeSoc is that we deemphasize identity separation as a primary way to protect participants from abuses and cancel culture. Some level of separation (e.g., different Souls between family, work, politics, etc.) may be healthy, but in general there are great disadvantages to relying on the ability to spin up new identities as a primary crutch against attacks. It makes reputation-staking for lending and provenance harder, and it composes poorly with governance mechanisms that try to correct for correlations or Sybils.

Rather than protecting victims by allowing them to re-emerge from attacks with a new–if diminished—identity, DeSoc would allow other approaches, such as contextualizing the attacker. “Cancellation” often arises precisely because statements and actions are taken out of context and viral signals travel through uncontextualized networks, when a person or bot has little social connection or context to a victim. In the same way that SBTs provide provenance to protect against deep fakes, a map of SBTs socially graphs a “hit piece’s” origin. “Hit pieces” essentially are artifacts arising outside of the victim’s communities (as reflected by shared SBT memberships), or lacking SBT attestations from the victim’s communities—which should cast doubt on the piece’s veracity. SBTs also empower victims to launch a defensive response to counteract the hit, curated and propagated from their network of trust (represented here by the patterns of co-holding of SBTs). By maintaining social context, people can maintain trust, even if they are under threat of cancellation, and hold attackers accountable. Improving provenance improves the social foundation of truth.

8.2 假名经济

Balaji Srinivasan 最广泛地推动了基于将声誉系统与零知识证明机制相结合以保护隐私的社会愿景，他创造并推广了“假名经济”一词。他的早期版本强调使用假名来避免社会暴徒的歧视和“取消文化”，这些暴徒试图损害一个人的声誉并打破他们的社会联系。它设想人们在他们的钱包中积累可转移的零知识 (ZK) 证明，并通过将证明子集转移到新钱包或将证明拆分到多个钱包中来逃避声誉攻击，这可能是没有可追溯性的。在挑选要移植的证明时，一个人选择新帐户中所需的假名级别，权衡更多匿名性（移植较少的证明）或更多分布到他们的社交网络（移植更多的证明）之间的权衡。

典型的匿名经济提案和 DeSoc 之间的实际区别在于，我们不再强调身份分离是保护参与者免受滥用和取消文化的主要方式。某种程度的分离（例如，家庭、工作、政治等之间的不同灵魂）可能是健康的，但一般来说，依靠建立新身份的能力作为抵御攻击的主要拐杖存在很大的缺点。它使贷款和出处的声誉赌注变得更加困难，并且它与试图纠正相关性或 Sybils 的治理机制的组合很差。

DeSoc 不会通过允许受害者以新的身份（如果已减少）重新出现在攻击中来保护受害者，而是允许其他方法，例如将攻击者情境化。 “取消”经常出现，因为当一个人或机器人与受害者几乎没有社交联系或背景时，声明和行动是脱离上下文并且病毒信号通过非上下文网络传播的。与 SBT 提供出处以防止深度伪造的方式相同，SBT 的地图在社交上绘制了“热门作品”的起源。 “热门片段”本质上是在受害者社区之外产生的人工制品（如共享的 SBT 成员资格所反映），或者缺乏来自受害者社区的 SBT 证明——这应该会让人怀疑该作品的真实性。 SBT 还使受害者能够发起防御性反应，以抵消从他们的信任网络中策划和传播的打击（此处以共同持有 SBT 的模式为代表）。通过维护社会背景，人们可以保持信任，即使他们面临取消的威胁，并追究攻击者的责任。改善出处可以改善真理的社会基础。

8.3 Proof of personhood (PoP)

Proof of Personhood protocols (PoP) aim to provide tokens of individual uniqueness, to prevent Sybil attacks and allow non-financialized applications. To do so, they rely on approaches such as global analysis of social graphs, biometrics, simultaneous global key parties, or some combination thereof. However, because PoP protocols seek to represent individual identities—focused on achieving global uniqueness—rather than social identities mapping relationships and solidarities, PoP protocols are limited to applications that treat all humans the same. Most applications we are interested in—such as staking reputation—are relational and move beyond being a unique human to being a differentiated human.

Moreover, PoP protocols are not immune to sybil attacks. In almost all near-term foreseeable applications, PoP systems are effectively open to Sybil attacks, just at a slightly higher cost. Unless most people on the planet are registered for a PoP service and are participating in a particular validation exercise, an attacker can always recruit disinterested humans who are not yet participating to act as Sybils. While such mercenaries are not quite bots, the difference is superficial other than perhaps a small added expense.

Many PoP protocols aim to build a substrate for universal basic income or global democracy. While we don’t share the same ambition, such protocols have spurred us to nonetheless consider how to build gradually towards coordinating plural network goods. In contrast to the binary, individualist and global nature of PoP, our approach aims to construct a rich, contextual and layered substrate for bottom-up reputation, property and governance that allows participation in a range of communities and networks, small and large.

8.3 人格证明（PoP）

人格证明协议 (PoP) 旨在提供个人唯一性的代币，以防止 Sybil 攻击并允许非金融化应用程序。为此，他们依赖于社交图谱的全局分析、生物识别、同步的全球关键方或它们的某种组合等方法。然而，由于 PoP 协议寻求代表个人身份——专注于实现全球唯一性——而不是映射关系和团结的社会身份，所以 PoP 协议仅限于对所有人一视同仁的应用程序。我们感兴趣的大多数应用程序（例如质押声誉）都是相关的，并且超越了成为一个独特的人，成为一个与众不同的人。

此外，PoP 协议也不能免受女巫攻击。在几乎所有近期可预见的应用中，PoP 系统都有效地对 Sybil 攻击开放，只是成本略高。除非地球上的大多数人都注册了 PoP 服务并且正在参与特定的验证活动，否则攻击者总是可以招募尚未参与的不感兴趣的人充当 Sybils。虽然这样的雇佣兵并不完全是机器人，但区别只是表面的，可能只是增加了一点点费用。

许多 PoP 协议旨在为普遍基本收入或全球民主建立基础。虽然我们的野心不同，但此类协议仍促使我们考虑如何逐步构建以协调多种网络产品。与 PoP 的二元、个人主义和全球性质相比，我们的方法旨在为自下而上的声誉、财产和治理构建一个丰富的、上下文相关的和分层的基础，允许参与各种大小的社区和网络。

8.4 Verifiable credentials

Verifiable credentials (VCs) are a W3C standard where credentials (or attestations) are zk-shareable at the holder’s discretion. VCs highlight the major limitations of our baseline privacy paradigm and motivate our discussion of privacy extensions above. Until SBTs have privacy extensions that narrow publicity, VCs and SBTs can be seen as natural complements: in particular, SBTs are initially public making them inappropriate for sensitive information like government-issued identification, while VC implementations have struggled with a recovery paradigm that could be addressed by community recovery. The two approaches combined can in the near-term be stronger than either alone. But VCs also have a key limitation: at least in their standardized form, VCs do not support most of the applications we have enumerated because of their unilateral privacy.

Unilateral zk-sharing isn’t incentive-compatible with our use cases, nor does it reflect our norms around privacy. Most of our applications depend on some level of publicity. But under zk-sharing, Souls can’t know another Soul possesses an SBT unless it is shared to them—making reputation-staking, redible commitments, sybil-resistant governance, and simple rental contracts (e.g., apartment lease) impossible to get off the ground as other commitments and encumbrances are not necessarily visible. More deeply, we are skeptical that unilateral shareability is usually the right privacy paradigm. Rarely does one party in a multi-party relationship have the unilateral rights to disclose the relationship without the consent of the other. Just as unilaterally transferable private property is not a rich property regime, simplistic unilateral shareability is not a very rich privacy regime. If two parties co-own an asset and choose to represent their relationship through a VC, such credential doesn’t allow for the mutual-consent and mutual-permissions. This problem travels to more complex cases of plural property and complex organizational forms and permissions, which are a feature of DeSoc.

8.4 可验证的凭据

可验证凭证 (VC) 是 W3C 标准，其中凭证（或证明）由持有者自行决定是 zk-shareable。VC 强调了我们基线隐私范式的主要局限性，并激发了我们对上述隐私扩展的讨论。在 SBT 具有缩小宣传范围的隐私扩展之前，VC 和 SBT 可以被视为自然的补充：特别是，SBT 最初是公开的，因此它们不适用于政府颁发的身份证明等敏感信息，而 VC 的实施一直在努力应对一种恢复范式，这可能是由社区恢复解决。在短期内，这两种方法结合起来可能比单独使用任何一种方法都更强大。但是 VC 也有一个关键的限制：至少在它们的标准化形式上，VC 不支持我们列举的大多数应用程序，因为它们具有单方面的隐私性。

单边零知识共享与我们的用例不兼容激励，也不反映我们关于隐私的规范。我们的大多数应用程序都依赖于某种程度的宣传。但是在 zk-sharing 下，Souls 无法知道另一个 Soul 拥有 SBT，除非它被共享给他们——这使得声誉赌注、redible 承诺、抗女巫治理和简单的租赁合同（例如，公寓租赁）无法脱身其他承诺和产权负担不一定是可见的。更深入地说，我们怀疑单方面的可共享性通常是正确的隐私范式。多方关系中的一方很少有未经另一方同意而单方面披露关系的权利。正如单方面可转让的私有财产不是丰富的财产制度一样，简单的单方面可共享性也不是非常丰富的隐私制度。如果两方共同拥有一项资产并选择通过 VC 代表他们的关系，则这种凭证不允许相互同意和相互许可。这个问题涉及到更复杂的复数财产和复杂的组织形式和权限的情况，这是 DeSoc 的一个特点。

§9 SOUL BIRTH

The path from the current web3 ecosystem to augmented sociality mediated by SBTs faces a classic cold start challenge. On the one hand, SBTs are not transferable. On the other hand, today’s mix of wallets may not be the final home for SBTs because they lack community recovery mechanisms. But in order for community recovery wallets to work, they need a rich variety of SBTs across discrete communities to be secure. What comes first: SBTs or community recovery? Who are the early adopter communities? How do SBTs on different chains interoperate? We cannot aspire to know all the possibilities and answers, but instead sketch a few promising paths for the reader to further explore within the current web3 and even web2 architecture.

从当前的 web3 生态系统到由 SBT 介导的增强社交的路径面临着典型的冷启动挑战。一方面，SBT 不可转让。另一方面，今天的钱包组合可能不是 SBT 的最终归宿，因为它们缺乏社区恢复机制。但为了让社区恢复钱包发挥作用，他们需要跨不同社区的各种 SBT 来保证安全。首先是什么：SBT 还是社区恢复？ 谁是早期采用者社区？不同链上的 SBT 如何互操作？ 我们不能渴望知道所有的可能性和答案，而是勾勒出一些有希望的路径供读者在当前的 web3 甚至 web2 架构中进一步探索。

9.1 Proto SBTs

Although the hallmark of SBTs is non-transferability, SBTs may also have another property which may prove more useful in bootstrapping: revocability. It’s possible that SBTs first gestate as revocable, transferable tokens, before growing into non-transferability. A token is revocable if an issuer can burn the token and re-issue it to a new wallet. Burning and re-issuing would make sense when, for example, keys are lost or compromised, and the issuer has an interest in ensuring the tokens are not financialized and sold off to a party—in other words, when the token signals authentic community membership. Employers, churches, meet-up groups, clubs with repeat off-chain interactions are well positioned to burn and re-issue tokens because they have a relationship with a person, and can easily check for impersonation by phone call, video-conference, or simple meeting in person. Single interactions, such as attendance to a concert or conference are poorly suited because community bonds are weaker.

Revocable, transferable tokens are a kind of proto-SBT—serving supportive, placental functions before Soul birth. These tokens buy time both for wallets to gestate secure, community recovery mechanisms and for a person to su￾ciently accumulate proto-SBTs that can eventually be burned and re-issued into non-transferable SBTs. Under this pathway, the question is not, “what happens first: SBTs or community recovery?” Rather, SBTs and community recovery instantiate simultaneously, birthing a Soul.

9.1 原型 SBT

尽管 SBT 的标志是不可转让性，但 SBT 可能还具有另一个可能被证明在引导中更有用的属性：可撤销性。SBT 有可能首先孕育为可撤销、可转让的代币，然后才发展为不可转让。如果发行者可以销毁令牌并将其重新发行到新钱包，则令牌是可撤销的。例如，当密钥丢失或泄露时，燃烧和重新发行是有意义的，并且发行人有兴趣确保代币不会被金融化并出售给一方——换句话说，当代币表明真正的社区成员身份时，具有重复链下互动的雇主、教堂、聚会团体、俱乐部很容易销毁和重新发行代币，因为它们与人有关系，并且可以通过电话、视频会议或简单的面对面会议。单一的互动，例如参加音乐会或会议，不太适合，因为社区纽带较弱。

可撤销、可转让的代币是一种原型 SBT——在灵魂出生之前提供支持性的胎盘功能。这些代币为钱包争取时间来孕育安全的社区恢复机制，以及让人们充分积累最终可以被烧毁并重新发行为不可转让的 SBT 的原始 SBT。在这条路径下，问题不是“首先发生什么：SBT 还是社区恢复？”相反，SBT 和社区恢复同时实例化，产生了一个灵魂。

9.2 Community Recovery Wallets

Although today’s wallets lack community recovery, they each have relative strengths and weaknesses in being homes—or perhaps gestational wombs—for SBTs. Proof of Personhood (PoP) protocols have the advantage of already experimenting with social dispute resolution mechanisms, which are the foundation of community recovery. Also, many DAOs use PoPs to facilitate governance, making them natural first issuers of SBTs. However, despite PoPs natural lead, PoP protocols haven’t yet earned broad trust to house valuable token assets, whereas custodial wallets have.

Custodial wallets—despite their flaws of centralization—may thus offer a natural onramp for less sophisticated retail users. Such custodial wallets could also build tooling for retail communities to issue revocable tokens that later convert (or burn and reissue) into SBTs or even tooling for more “corporate” issuers—many of whom are looking for ways to build loyal customer bases in web3 but lack expertise in custody. Once community recovery mechanisms have been formalized and battle-tested, these custodial wallets could decentralize into community recovery, while custodians move on to providing other valuable services in DeSoc (like community management, SBTs issuances, etc.)

For more sophisticated web3 users, decentralized non-custodial wallets (or non-custodial social recovery wallets like Argent and Loopring) are a natural starting point for bootstrapping community recovery mechanisms. Non-custodial wallets have the advantage of being native web3 open-source, and the flexibility to pre-announce and experiment with mechanisms incrementally to a subset of voluntary, sophisticated users to battletest incentives and mix mechanisms (e.g.,mult-sig). All of these approaches—PoPs, custodial, and non-custodial—play an important role in experimenting and onboarding users with different degrees of sophistication and risk tolerance.

9.2 社区恢复钱包

尽管今天的钱包缺乏社区恢复能力，但它们在成为 SBT 的家——或者可能是妊娠子宫——方面都有相对的优势和劣势。人格证明 (PoP) 协议的优势在于已经在尝试社会争议解决机制，这是社区恢复的基础。此外，许多 DAO 使用 PoP 来促进治理，使其自然成为 SBT 的第一发行者。然而，尽管 PoP 自然领先，但 PoP 协议尚未赢得广泛信任来存放有价值的代币资产，而托管钱包则有。

托管钱包——尽管存在中心化缺陷——可能因此为不太成熟的零售用户提供了一个自然的入口。此类托管钱包还可以为零售社区构建工具，以发行可撤销的代币，这些代币随后会转换（或销毁和重新发行）为 SBT，甚至可以为更多“企业”发行人提供工具——其中许多人正在寻找在 web3 中建立忠诚客户群的方法，但缺乏监管方面的专业知识。一旦社区恢复机制正式确定并经过实战考验，这些托管钱包可以分散到社区恢复中，而托管人则继续在 DeSoc 中提供其他有价值的服务（如社区管理、SBT 发行等）

对于更成熟的 web3 用户，去中心化的非托管钱包（或像 Argent 和 Loopring 这样的非托管社交恢复钱包）是引导社区恢复机制的自然起点。非托管钱包具有原生 web3 开源的优势，并且可以灵活地预先宣布和逐步试验机制，让一部分自愿的、成熟的用户对激励和混合机制（例如多重签名）进行战斗测试。所有这些方法（PoP、托管和非托管）在试验和引导具有不同复杂程度和风险承受能力的用户方面发挥着重要作用。

9.3 Proto-Souls

Norms can also shepherd Souls into existence. As we rethink tokens and wallets, we can also reframe how we think about certain classes of NFTs and tokens that are intended to signal membership. In particular, we can introduce a norm of not transferring NFTs and POAPs issued by reputable institutions that reflect attendance to a conference, work experience, or education credentials. Such transfers of membership tokens—if traded for value—could diminish the reputation of a wallet and perhaps discourage issuers from further issuing membership or POAP tokens to that wallet. Already in the non-custodial ecosystem, a significant number of users have achieved significant financial reputation and stake in their wallets, which could bootstrap as effective collateral for them not to abuse non-transferability expectations.

While all these pathways have respective challenges, we hope that the variety of approaches increases the chance of convergence to our quasi-equilibrium state in the medium term through a small set of steps.

9.3 原始灵魂

规范也可以引导灵魂存在。当我们重新考虑代币和钱包时，我们还可以重新定义我们对某些类别的 NFT 和旨在表明会员资格的代币的看法。特别是，我们可以引入不转让由知名机构颁发的反映会议出席情况、工作经验或教育证书的 NFT 和 POAP 的规范。这种会员代币的转移——如果进行价值交易——可能会降低钱包的声誉，并可能阻止发行人进一步向该钱包发行会员或 POAP 代币。已经在非托管生态系统中，大量用户已经获得了显着的财务声誉和钱包中的股份，这可以作为有效的抵押品，让他们不滥用不可转让性期望。

虽然所有这些途径都有各自的挑战，但我们希望各种方法能够通过一小部分步骤增加在中期收敛到我们的准平衡状态的机会。

§10 CONCLUSION

As ambitious as we have been in imagining what DeSoc could enable, in many ways the above are just first steps. There is more than one road to DeSoc, including a number of non-blockchain based frameworks, such as Spritely, ACDC and Backchannel that rely on data stores tied to local machines rather than global ledgers. These frameworks may eventually o￾er even greater trust across social distance, because they can harness transitivity of trust relationships—like trusted introductions—rather than relying on SBTs issued by well-known, high-status institutions (like universities or DAOs). Furthermore the applications we describe above are just the beginning of what DeSoc can empower, not touching virtual worlds: their physics, society, and their complex intersection with the physical world. All this suggests that even the broad ambitions we paint above are just the beginning of what DeSoc may eventually become.

On that path, however, many challenges and open questions remain. The above sketches require extensive red teaming and many of them are more suggestive than fully prescriptive. How can DAOs maintain their publicity of state while thoughtfully comparing patterns of Souls and correlations in SBTs to enforce Sybil protections and decentralization? How incentive compatible is acquiring SBTs in face of various schemes of correlation discounting? How much does privacy conflict with correlation discounting and other DeSoc mechanism designs? How can we measure inequality in a social and yet appropriately private (contextually integral) manner? How should inheritance work in the community recovery framework? Are there red lines that can be drawn or even baked into protocols to avoid dystopian scenarios? Or should we simply race to build the best scenarios first? These questions are just the beginning of what we expect to be a research agenda spanning years that will co-evolve with the DeSoc ecosystem.

Yet the potential that DeSoc offers seems not just worth the price of navigating these tricky challenges, but perhaps necessary to ensure our survival. Albert Einstein told the 1932 disarmament conference that the failures of the “organizing power of man” to keep pace with “his technical advances” had put a “razor in the hands of a 3-year-old child.” In a world where his observation seems more prescient than ever, learning how to program futures that encode sociality—rather than writing over trust—seems a required course for human life on this planet to persist.

尽管我们一直在想象 DeSoc 可以实现什么，但在许多方面，上述只是第一步。通往 DeSoc 的道路不止一条，包括许多基于非区块链的框架，例如 Spritely、ACDC 和 Backchannel，它们依赖于与本地机器而不是全局分类帐相关的数据存储。这些框架最终可能会在社交距离上提供更大的信任，因为它们可以利用信任关系的传递性——比如受信任的介绍——而不是依赖于知名的高地位机构（如大学或 DAO）发布的 SBT。此外，我们上面描述的应用程序只是 DeSoc 能够增强能力的开始，而不涉及虚拟世界：它们的物理、社会以及它们与物理世界的复杂交集。所有这些都表明，即使是我们在上面描绘的广泛野心，也只是 DeSoc 最终可能成为的开始。

然而，在这条道路上，仍然存在许多挑战和悬而未决的问题。上述草图需要大量的红队，其中许多比完全规范更具暗示性。DAO 如何在仔细比较 SBT 中的灵魂模式和相关性以执行 Sybil 保护和去中心化的同时保持其状态宣传？面对各种相关贴现方案，获得 SBT 的激励兼容性如何？隐私与相关折扣和其他 DeSoc 机制设计有多少冲突？我们如何以一种社会性的但又适当的私人（语境整合）方式来衡量不平等？继承在社区恢复框架中应该如何工作？是否有可以绘制甚至纳入协议的红线以避免反乌托邦情景？还是我们应该首先竞相构建最佳场景？这些问题只是我们期望的跨年研究议程的开始，该议程将与 DeSoc 生态系统共同发展。

然而，DeSoc 提供的潜力似乎不仅值得为应对这些棘手的挑战付出代价，而且可能是确保我们生存所必需的。阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦在 1932 年的裁军会议上说，“人的组织能力”未能跟上“他的技术进步”的步伐，这让“一个 3 岁的孩子手里拿着一把剃刀”。在一个他的观察似乎比以往任何时候都更有先见之明的世界里，学习如何编程编码社会性的未来——而不是写在信任之上——似乎是人类在这个星球上生存下去的必修课。