Vitalik and other latest papers: Finding the soul of Web3 (Part 1)

Original title: "Decentralized Society: Finding Web3』s Soul"   

Original author:  E.Glen Weyl,  Puja Ohlhaver,  Vitalik Buterin

Original compilation: xinyang, DAOrayaki.org

Summary

Today, Web3 more It may be an expression of transferable and financial assets, rather than a coding of social trust relationship. Yet many core economic activities, such as unsecured lending and building a personal brand, are built on lasting, non-transferable relationships. In this paper, we illustrate how non-transferable "soulbound" tokens ("soulbound" tokens, SBTs) representing "soul" commitments, credentials, and relationships encode the real economy's web of trust to establish provenance and reputation of. More importantly, SBTs can realize other more and more application scenarios, such as recovery of community wallets, anti-virus governance, decentralized mechanisms, and new markets with decomposable and shared rights.

We call this richer and more diverse ecosystem the Decentralized Society (DeSoc)—a co-determined sociality , in which the "soul" and the community come together bottom-up as emerging attributes of each other, co-creating composite network goods and knowledge at different levels. Key to this sociability are decomposable property rights and enhanced governance mechanisms — such as relevance-scored quadratic funding — that reward trust and cooperation while protecting the network from capture, extraction, and control. With this enhanced sociality, the socially distanced Web3 can abandon today's over-financialization and opt for a more transformative, pluralistic future, one that is constantly evolving.

Chapter 1 Introduction

In less than a decade, Web3 has created An unprecedented unique and flexible parallel financial system that shocked the world. Fundamental elements of crypto and economics, such as public-key cryptography, smart contracts, proof-of-work, and proof-of-stake, bring about a complex and open ecosystem for financial transactions.

However, the economic value of financial transactions is generated by human beings and their relationships. Since Web3 lacks the foundational elements that represent this social identity, it fundamentally relies on the centralized Web2 structure it seeks to outperform, thus replicating its limitations.

This dependency is reflected in:

1. Most NFT artists rely on centralized platforms like OpenSea and Twitter to promise scarcity and initial provenance.

2. DAOs that try to go beyond simple Token voting often rely on Web2 infrastructure, such as social media accounts, to resist Sybil attacks.

3. Many Web3 players rely on hosted wallets managed by centralized entities such as Coinbase or Binance. Decentralized key management systems are not friendly enough for anyone but a few geeks.

Furthermore, due to the lack of a native Web3 identity, today's DeFi ecosystem cannot support activities that are prevalent in the real economy, such as undercollateralized loans, or simple A contract like an apartment lease. In this paper, we demonstrate that even a small step towards representing social identities with "soul-bound" tokens can overcome these limitations and move the entire ecosystem toward re-establishing a model that reflects the native Web3 world of human relationships. A big step for the market.

Going a step further, we point out that native Web3 social identities, because of the rich social composability, can revolve around wealth concentration and governance of financial attacks in Web3 Enormous progress has been made on broader long-term issues such as fragility, while stimulating a Cambrian explosion of innovative political, economic and social applications. We refer to these use cases and the richer, diverse ecosystem they enable as the Decentralized Society (DeSoc).

Chapter 2 Outline

We begin by explaining the basic elements of DeSoc, which revolve around Accounts (or wallets) that hold non-transferable (initially public) "soul-bound" Tokens (SBTs), representing commitments, credentials, and relationships. This token is like an extended resume issued by other wallets that can prove these social connections.

We then describe a "ladder" of increasingly powerful applications implemented in the social stack by these fundamental elements of DeSoc, including:

1. Establish provenance;

2. Unlock the undersecured lending market through reputation;

3. Realize decentralized key management;

4. Frustration and offset Coordinated strategic behavior;

5. Measuring decentralization;

6. Create new types of marketplaces with disaggregated, shared rights and permissions.

The climax of this description is the vision of DeSoc - a co-determined sociality in which the "soul" and community self- Come together from bottom to top, as emerging attributes of each other, to jointly create composite network products at different levels, including composite intelligence.

Finally, we answer several possible concerns and objections and compare with other identity paradigms familiar in the Web3 space, acknowledging that our vision is only A first step, but still a step forward for programmable privacy and communication. We then consider technical avenues to guide our imagined visions. On this basis, we look forward to DeSoc's potential to redirect Web3 to a deeper, legitimate and transformative path from a more philosophical perspective.

Chapter 3 "Soul"

The key foundational element we are talking about is the account, Or a wallet, which holds publicly visible, non-transferable (but may be revoked by the issuer) Tokens. We refer to accounts as "souls" and the tokens held by accounts as "soul tokens" (SBTs). Despite our strong interest in privacy, we initially assumed public because, as a concept, it is technically easier to verify, even if constrained by the kinds of tokens people are willing to share publicly. Later in this paper, we introduce the concept of "programmable privacy" for richer use cases.

Imagine a world where most participants have "souls" that store SBTs, corresponding to a series of relationships, memberships, and credentials. For example, a person might have a "soul" that stores SBTs representing educational credentials, employment history, or a string of hashes representing their writings or artwork. In their simplest form, these SBTs are "self-certifying", similar to how we share information about ourselves in resumes. But the real power of this mechanism comes when SBTs held by one "soul" can be issued or attested by other "souls" who are counterparties to these relationships. These counterparty “souls” can be individuals, companies or institutions. For example, the Ethereum Foundation could be a "soul" that issues SBTs to "souls" that attend developer conferences. A university can be a "soul" that issues SBTs to its graduates. A stadium can be a "soul" for handing out SBTs to longtime Dodgers fans.

Note that there is no requirement that a "soul" be associated with a legitimate name, nor is there any protocol level attempt to ensure that "one for each soul". "Soul" can be a long-used pseudonym, with a series of SBTs, not easily linked to a real person. Nor do we assume that "souls" are not transferable between humans. Instead, we try to illustrate how these properties emerge naturally from the design itself when required.

Chapter 4 The Ladder to a Decentralized Society

4.1 Art and "Soul "

"Soul" is a natural way for an artist to stake his prestige in his work. When issuing tradable NFTs, artists can issue NFTs from their "souls". The more SBTs an artist's "soul" carries, the easier it is for buyers to identify that the "soul" belongs to the artist, and thus determine the legitimacy of the NFT. Artists can go a step further by posting a linked SBTs in their "soul", proving that a certain NFT is a member of the "collection" and vouching for any scarcity limits the artist wishes to set. Souls will thus create a reliable, on-chain way to stake and build reputation on an object's provenance and scarcity.

The scope of application extends beyond art to services, rentals and any market built on scarcity, reputation or authenticity. An example of the latter is verifying the authenticity of so-called factual records, such as photos and videos. As deepfake technology advances, direct human and algorithmic checks will become less and less able to detect authenticity. While the addition of blockchain allows us to track when a particular work was made, SBTs will allow us to track social provenance, giving us rich social context into the "soul" of published works - their membership, A combination of relationships, credentials—and their social distance from the work. “High imitation” can be easily identified because these artworks were not produced in the corresponding time and social context, while authentic artworks (such as photos) are attested by famous photographers. While current technologies decontextualize cultural products such as pictures and subject them to uncontrolled viral attacks in the absence of social context, SBTs can recontextualize these items and make the "soul ” being able to leverage the trust relationships that already exist within the community as a meaningful backstop to protect reputation.

4.2 "Soul" Lending

Perhaps the greatest financial value built directly on reputation It is credit and unsecured loans. Currently, the Web3 ecosystem cannot replicate even a simple form of unsecured lending, as all assets are transferable and marketable, and thus can only be a simple form of collateral. The “traditional” financial ecosystem supports many forms of unsecured lending, but relies on centralized credit scores to measure a borrower’s creditworthiness, with little incentive for borrowers to share information about their credit history. This score has many flaws. At their best, they weight and downweight factors related to creditworthiness in an opaque fashion and bias against those who haven't accumulated enough data—mainly minorities and the poor. At worst, they can manipulate Black Mirror-like "social credit" systems and enforce discrimination.

An ecosystem of SBTs that can create a censorship-resistant, bottom-up alternative to top-down commercialization "Social" credit system. SBTs representing educational credentials, work histories, and lease contracts can be durably recorded as credit-related histories, allowing “souls” to be reputable as collateral to avoid collateral requirements and obtain loans. Loans and lines of credit can be represented as non-transferable but revocable SBTs, so they are nested in other SBTs of the "soul" - an indivisible collateral of reputation - until they are repaid and subsequently destroyed; or A better way is to replace it with a proof of repayment. SBTs offer helpful security properties: non-assignability prevents assignments or hides outstanding loans, while a rich ecosystem of SBTs ensures that borrowers who attempt to evade a loan (perhaps by creating a new "soul") will SBTs to meaningfully stake their reputation.

The ease with which SBTs can be used to calculate public debt will lead to a more open lending market. New correlations between SBTs and repayment risk would emerge, leading to better lending algorithms for predicting creditworthiness and reducing reliance on centralized, opaque credit scoring infrastructure. Moreover, borrowing and lending may occur in social connections. In particular, SBTs will form the basis of community lending practices, similar to those pioneered by Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, where members of a social network agree to support each other's debts. Since all SBTs of a "soul" represent memberships in different social groups, participants can easily discover other "souls" who will become important co-participants in group lending projects. Commercial lending is a “borrow and forget” repayment model, while community lending may adopt a “borrow and help” approach—combining working capital and human capital to achieve a higher rate of return.

How did unsecured community lending come into being? In the beginning, we wanted "souls" to only carry SBTs with information they were willing to share publicly, such as information in a resume. While limited in scope, this may be sufficient for in-community lending experiments, especially if SBTs are issued by reputable institutions. For example, a portfolio of SBTs showing certain programming credentials, a few conferences attended, and work history might be an advantage for Soul to get venture capital (or raise seed funding) for them. Such credentials and social ties have informally played an important, but opaque, role in the allocation of capital such as venture capital.

4.3 Don't lose your "soul"

The non-negotiability of some important SBTs — such as a one-time educational certificate — raises an important question: How do you avoid losing your “soul”? Today's recovery methods, such as multisig recovery or mnemonics, have different trade-offs in terms of mental load, ease of transaction, and security. Social recovery is an emerging alternative that relies on a person's relationship of trust. SBTs allow for a similar, but broader paradigm: community recovery, where the "soul" is the cross-voting of its social network.

Social recovery is a good starting point for security, but has several disadvantages in terms of security and usability. A user curates a group of "guardians" and empowers them through a majority to change the keys to their wallets. Guardians can be individuals, institutions, or a combination of other wallets. The problem is that users have to find a balance between having a relatively large number of guardians and ensuring that guardians come from unrelated social circles to avoid collusion. Additionally, guardians may die, relationships sour, or simply lose touch, resulting in frequent, attention-draining updates. While social recovery avoids single points of failure, successful recovery depends on curating and maintaining trusting relationships with a majority of guardians.

A more powerful solution would be to link "soul" restoration to "soul" membership across communities, without planning but maximizing Extensive real-time relationships for security. To recap, SBTs represent memberships in different communities. Some of these communities - such as employers, clubs, colleges or churches - may be more off-chain in nature, while others - such as participating in protocol governance or DAOs - may be more on-chain in nature. In the community recovery model, recovering a soul's private key requires the consent of a majority of members from the "souls" community (a random subset).

Just like social recovery, we assume that "soul" can Gain secure off-chain communication channels where “authentication” can take place — through conversation, face-to-face, or shared secrets. Such communication channels require greater bandwidth (theoretically, the ability to carry richer "information entropy") than the computation of on-chain bots or SBTs themselves. In fact, we can think of SBTs as fundamentally representing participation in, or access to, such real (i.e. high-bandwidth) communication channels.

Operational details require experimentation. For example, how guardians are selected and how much guardian consent is required are key security parameters that require further research. However, with such a rich information base, community recovery should be computationally possible, with increased security as "souls" join more diverse communities and form more meaningful relationships.

Community restoration as a safety mechanism embodies the early 20th century sociologist and founder of social network theory Georg Simmel The proposed theory of identity states that individual identities emerge from the intersection of social groups just as social groups emerge from the intersection of individuals. The maintenance and restoration of encrypted assets to "soul" requires the consent of the "soul" network. By embedding security in sociality, souls can always regenerate their keys through community recovery, which prevents the theft (or sale) of "souls": since the seller needs to prove that what is being sold is a restored relationship, anyone who sells "souls" Attempts lack credibility.

4.4 Souldrops

So far we have explained How "souls" represent individuals and re-embody their unique traits and group identities as they acquire SBTs, manifesting their relationships, memberships, and credentials. Such personalization helps Soul build a reputation, establish provenance, access the unsecured lending market, and protect reputation and identity. But the reverse is also true; SBTs also enable communities to be brought together at unique intersections of "souls". So far, Web3 has relied heavily on token sales or airdrops to rally new communities with little accuracy or precision. Airdrops, that is, send Token to a group of wallet addresses for free through an algorithm, most of which fall into a certain combination of existing Token holders and wallets, are vulnerable to Sybil attacks, and encourage strategic behavior and Matthew effect. SBTs have a radical improvement on this, which we call "soul" airdrops.

The "soul" airdrop is calculated based on the airdrop of SBTs and other Tokens in the "soul". For example, a DAO that wants to convene a community within a particular Layer 1 protocol could airdrop to developers holding SBTs that accounted for 3 of the past 5 meetings' attendance, or other tokens that represent attendance, such as POAPs. The protocol can also weight the release of Token in the combination of various SBTs in a programmatic way. We can imagine that a non-profit organization with a mission of planting trees will release governance tokens to the "souls" who hold a combination of environmental action SBTs, horticulture SBTs and carbon sequestration tokens - perhaps more tokens will be released to carbon sequestration token holders .

The "soul" airdrop could also introduce new incentives to encourage community participation. Airdropped SBTs can be designed to be "soul-bound" for a period of time, but eventually "belong" as transferable Tokens over time. vice versa. Holding a transferable token for a period of time unlocks the rights to SBTs, giving the protocol further governance rights. SBTs open up a wealth of possibilities to experiment with different mechanisms to maximize community engagement and other goals such as decentralization. We discuss further below.

4.5 DAO composed of "soul"

Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) is A virtual community that comes together around a common purpose, coordinated through smart contract voting on a public blockchain. While DAOs have great potential for coordinating global communities, they are vulnerable to Sybil attacks, where a user can have multiple wallets to accumulate voting power, or in less complex one-coin-one-vote governance, simply hoard Token accumulates 51% of the voting rights and deprives the other 49% of the voting rights of the holders.

DAO can mitigate the Sybil attack of SBTs in several ways, namely:

< /p>

1. Calculate a set of SBTs for a "spirit" to distinguish unique souls from possible bots, and deny any voting rights to a "spirit" suspected of being a witch.

2. Give more voting rights to "souls" who have more prestigious SBTs - such as work or education proofs, licenses or certificates .

3. Publish dedicated "proof-of-personhood" SBTs, which can help other DAOs deploy resistance to witches more easily.

4. Check the correlation between SBTs held by "souls" that support a particular vote, and apply lower vote weight.

The last dependency check idea is particularly promising and innovative. Votes supported by many "souls" sharing the same SBTs are more It could be a Sybil attack, and even if it wasn't a Sybil attack, such a vote would be more likely to be cast by a group of "spirits" who were equally erroneous in judgment or equally biased, and thus would have the same amount of support but from more diverse Compared with the votes of optimized participants, their weight should be reasonably reduced.

We explore this idea mathematically in more detail in the appendix, where we introduce a new foundational element called "correlation Fraction". This notion of relevance discounting can be extended to structured deliberation sessions. For example, a DAO that is easily captured by a majority could calculate SBTs to maximize the ability to bring together diverse members in talks, ensuring that the voices of the minority are heard.

DAOs can also rely on SBTs to prevent strategic behavior such as "vampire attacks". In this attack, a DAO—usually a related DeFi protocol with economic value—by copying another DAO’s open source code, plagiarizing other people’s research and development results, and then using Token to lure users’ liquidity into it. The DAO could airdrop only "souls" that are likely to resist Sybil attacks and provide liquidity by first creating a specification around "soul" airdrops (perhaps by holding specific SBTs), and then withhold those who divert their liquidity during vampire attacks The airdrop of "soul". The same mechanism doesn't work for wallet airdrops, as holders can spread liquidity across many wallets in order to confuse their traces of liquidity.

DAOs can also use SBTs to make leadership and governance programmatically responsive to their communities. Leadership roles can change dynamically as the composition of the community changes—this is reflected in changes in the distribution of SBTs among the "souls" of members. A subset of members can be promoted to potential management roles based on their intersectionality and reach across multiple communities within the DAO. Protocols that value community cohesion can use SBTs to keep the cross-circle layer "soul" central. Additionally, DAOs can choose to have certain combinations of characteristics have a higher likelihood of entering governance than others, such as diversity in zip codes or DAOs that span more diverse interests.

4.6 Measure decentralization from the perspective of Pluralism

Analyzing the real world When developing an ecosystem, it is best to measure the degree of decentralization of the ecosystem. To what extent is the ecosystem truly decentralized, and to what extent is it “false” to be in fact dominated by one person or small group of actors acting together?

Two popular indicators of decentralization are the Nakamoto coefficient proposed by Balaji Srinivasan, which measures how many different entities need to combine to Collect 51% of the resources; and the Herfindahl–Hirschman index, a measure of market concentration in antitrust, calculated by summing the squares of the market shares of market participants. However, none of these approaches address the key issues of what is the right source to measure, how to deal with partial coordination, and how to deal with the gray areas that form "distinguishable entities".

For example, nominally independent companies may have many common large shareholders, have directors who are friends with each other, or be regulated by the same government. In the context of the Token Protocol, it is highly inaccurate to measure the decentralization of token holdings by looking at on-chain wallets, since many people have multiple wallets and some wallets (such as exchanges) represent many people. Furthermore, even when addresses can be traced back to unique individuals, these people may be socially related groups, prone to accidental coordination (best case) or deliberate collusion (worst case). A better measure of decentralization should be able to capture social dependencies, weak ties, and strong identities.

90% of the total Bitcoin miners and mining pools Operators, they sit together for meetings.

SBTs support a different way of measuring the level of decentralization (or diversity) in a DAO, protocol or network.

1. As a first step, the protocol can limit Token voting to those that can better resist Sybil attacks (or have more the "soul" of rich SBTs).

2. In the second step, the agreement can check the correlation between the SBTs held by different "souls". If the "souls" share a large number of SBTs, then Discount their votes (pool them, separate them). (We explore the latter idea in more detail mathematically in Appendix A, where we introduce a new foundational element called the "relevance score").

3. As a third step, in order to zoom in and understand the decentralization of the entire network, we can measure the SBTs held by the "soul" in the network stack Correlations between different layers of VC — measuring correlations in terms of voting, token ownership, governance-related communications, and even control over computing resources.

SBTs allow us to begin to measure the degree of decentralization of an interoperable and layered ecosystem, which is very difficult to measure today. There is also the big question of what formula best captures what we want to measure and is least susceptible to manipulation. We would have many questions about how to examine the relationship between SBTs - to give some SBTs more weight than others, to discount nested SBTs, or to take into account the composition of transferable tokens within a "soul". However, with a rich ecosystem of "souls" and SBTs, there will be more data to perform these calculations and move towards meaningful decentralization.

4.7 Composite Assets

DAOs usually own assets, or revolve around owning an asset organizations, both in the virtual and physical worlds. So far, the scope of Web3 has been largely limited to a small class of property whose full rights can be fully transferred: Tokens, NFTs, works of art, first editions or rare manuscripts such as the US Constitution, etc. But the emphasis on transferability works against Web3, making it unable to represent and support some of the simplest and ubiquitous property contracts today, such as apartment leases. In the Roman legal tradition, property rights were considered to consist of rights to use ("usus"), consume or destroy ("abusus"), and proceeds ("fructus"). All these rights rarely belong together to the same owner. For example, an apartment lease grants the lessor a limited right of use (“usus”), but not an unfettered right to destroy the apartment (“abusus”), sell the apartment (“fructus”), or even transfer the right of use (“subletting”) . Rights in immovable property (land) are usually subject to a series of restrictions on private use, grants of public use rights, restrictions on sales rights, and even rights to purchase through eminent domain. They are also often backed by a mortgage, transferring some financial value to the lender.

Future asset innovations are unlikely to be built on the hitherto imagined fully transferable private property. Instead, innovation will depend on the ability to decompose property rights to match the characteristics of existing property institutions and encode richer constructs. Corporations and other organizational forms evolved precisely to reorganize property rights in more creative ways—for example, allowing employees to use exclusive facilities (“usus”) but reserving managers the right to change or damage assets (“abusus” ), while paying the most financial benefits (“fructus”) to shareholders. SBTs have the flexibility to represent and extend such nuanced property rights in physical and virtual assets, while encouraging new experiments. Here are a few use cases:

1. Allow access to privately or publicly controlled resources (eg, homes, cars, museums, parks, and virtual equivalents). Transferable NFTs don't capture this use case well, because access is often conditional and non-transferable: if I trust you to go into my backyard and use it as a recreational space, it doesn't mean I trust you to Sublicense this license to others.

2. Data cooperatives, where SBTs grant data access to researchers while instantiating members' rights to grant access (perhaps via quadratic voting ), and bargain for economic rights to discoveries and intellectual property rights arising from research. We'll explore this further in Chapter 5, "Plural Sensemaking."

3. Experiment with local currencies and make rules to make the currency held and consumed by "souls" who live in a specific area or belong to a specific community have a higher value.

4. Experimenting with participation, SBTs create a sustainable basis for "souls" of less Gain influence in new and wider networks. Such souls will start with confined SBTs, connecting them to their family or local community. As their relationships diversify, they will gain access to a wider range of SBTs and thus voting power to influence the wider network - in the spirit of Danielle Allen's idea of multinationalism - currently a process by arbitrary age and It is resolved by the division of residence.

5. Experiments in market design, such as Harberger taxation and SALSA (Self-Assessment License at Auction), where asset holders A self-assessed price is published, anyone else can buy assets from them, and must periodically pay taxes proportional to that self-assessed price to maintain control. SBTs can be used to create more nuanced versions of SALSA—for example, where participation rights are community-approved to reduce strategic behavior from within or outside the community.

6. Design of experimental democratic mechanism, such as quadratic voting. Holders of SBTs representing community membership can vote quadratically on parameters such as incentives and tax rates. Ultimately, “market” and “politics” are not separate design spaces; SBTs can become a major part of a technology stack, enabling the exploration of the entire space where these two categories intertwine. Another such intersection, such as the provision of public goods through secondary fundraising.

Of course, some utopian scenarios can also be considered. The immigration system can use immigration SBTs for licensing. Regulatory capture (Annotation: Regulatory capture, describes the authority when formulating policies, put the interests of one interest group above the interests of all) can be achieved through nested community tokens, in which case homeowners have a disproportionate voting power to hinder housing construction. SBTs can redline automatically. As we discuss further below, these situations should be considered in the context of currently opaque top-down licensing and discrimination. SBTs would make discrimination more transparent and therefore potentially challengeable.

References

1. We thank Audrey Tang, Phil Daian, Danielle Allen, Leon Erichsen , Matthew Prewitt, Divya Siddarth, Jaron Lanier, and Robert Miller for thoughtful feedback and comments. All errors and opinions are solely our own.

2.Microsoft Corporation & RadicalXChange Foundation, glen@radicalxchange.org.Glen vinicula este documento a su Alma.

3.Flashbots Ltd., puja@ashbots.net.Puja gave this document to his grandmother Satya, her love and light will continue to shine on countless souls

< br>

4. EthereumFoundation, vitalik.buterin@ethereum.org.

5. We did not choose this set of properties because They are obviously the most desirable feature set, but because they are easy to implement in the current environment and support a lot of functions. We will explore programmable private SBTs in Section 5.3.

6. Note, however, that in principle legal names can be denoted as SBT: a family name would be a member SBT of a family group, a The given name can be one of the SBTs given to the child by the parents. In fact, if other family members or related persons gifted member SBTs to new children, a richer concept of names would be easily represented.

7. https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1264948490834247681  Evidence from informal Twitter surveys suggests that the idea of taking diversity into account in decision-making mechanisms is already considered intuitive.

8. Not enough data accumulated: https://www.technologyreview-com/2021/06/17/1026519/racial-bias-noisy-data- credit-scores-mortgage-loans-fairness-machine-learning/

9. Social recovery: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/ 11/recovery.html

10. Matthew Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

11. Data cooperative: https://www.noemamag.com/a-view-of-the-future-of-our-data/

< /p>

12. Multinationalism: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo138501033.html

By DAOs, research organizations and the media It can break through geographical restrictions and fund and produce content in a community way. DAOrayaki will use the form of DAO to build a public media system that meets people's needs, a democratic governance and everyone can use, so as to achieve true decentralization. Welcome to submit related research on interstellar immigration, quantum computing, and DAO through the following methods, and share the 10,000USDC bounty pool! Learn about decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO), discuss the latest governance topics, and follow the development trend of DAO. Welcome to join the DAOrayaki community!

Original link

欢迎加入律动 BlockBeats 官方社群：

Telegram 订阅群：https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram 交流群：https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Twitter 官方账号：https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia