Questions after reading the Last WhitePaper


#1

Hi all,
I’ve a few questions, if someone has time and is kind to answer them, I will really appreciate it.

1.A - As Aragon is an opt-in jurisdiction for DAOs and Individuals, are you planning to make it a “nation” for users to be able to become “citizens”? (Asgardia is trying to do something like that, after launching a satellite to space, but has nothing to do with Blockchain)
1.B - Any individual, company, non-profit organization can be registered within Aragon and “legally” operate globally?
2 - How can jurors know if reputation or an “account” within a court is sold? (RE: End of https://github.com/aragon/whitepaper#31-collateral-and-reputation )
3 - How can a bribery attempt be proved or detected by the Review Count Jurors? Other than by observing the juror is voting “in such a way that is not coherent with the jurors code of conduct”?
4 - In the case of a 55%-45% jury voting, would the 45% loose reputation in a case where there seems to not be a clear vote/side?
5.A - “When” do you expect that low volatility will be achieved by ANT? What circumstances must happen in the market?
5.B - How can Aragon respond to an accusation or any sort of manipulation due to programmatically managing “both the supply of ANT and a stability reserve based on a price target”? Could this become a “legal” issue? (Stability Reserve plays a part on this).
6 - Is there a current court being used on Aragon Core 0.5 which already has defined hierarchy and fees?
7 - Does Aragon Core 0.5 have an “explorer” of entities? Is there any way to see the current activity on the network?
8 - What are the usability plans? If Aragon gets to become as easy to use as DocuSign, for example, it would be able to go “mainstream”.

Thanks,

Jean


#2

Great questions! Will try to answer them below from my perspective.

1.A - As Aragon is an opt-in jurisdiction for DAOs and Individuals, are you planning to make it a “nation” for users to be able to become “citizens”? (Asgardia is trying to do something like that, after launching a satellite to space, but has nothing to do with Blockchain)
1.B - Any individual, company, non-profit organization can be registered within Aragon and “legally” operate globally?

1.A: yes, kind of. Anyone who hasn’t been banned will be able to join by posting collateral to the network.
1.B: Yes, as long as they adhere to the values in our manifesto.

2-5 I will leave to others to answer :slight_smile:

6 - Is there a current court being used on Aragon Core 0.5 which already has defined hierarchy and fees?

No

7 - Does Aragon Core 0.5 have an “explorer” of entities? Is there any way to see the current activity on the network?

Building a full-featured visual DAO Explorer is on the to-do list. We will probably Nest that project. In the mean time, there is the explorer on Supermax: https://supermax.cool/aragon

8 - What are the usability plans? If Aragon gets to become as easy to use as DocuSign, for example, it would be able to go “mainstream”.

This is a good question for folks on the product team, so I will leave it to them to answer. cc @chris @bpierre


#3

5.A - “When” do you expect that low volatility will be achieved by ANT? What circumstances must happen in the market?

I can think of a couple things:

  1. Volume and number of holders needs to grow dramatically, the more volume you have the less volatile ANT will be since in theory you will have more people holding it and a whale will be unable to swing the price considerably.

Consider https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/aragon/#markets, according to that, Liqui has about 75% of the volume right now, and 75% of the volume is just about $66 000. This is peanuts and makes it easy to “pump and dump”

  1. Reserve strategy must be in place: https://github.com/aragon/whitepaper#4-aragon-network-token
    This will help a great deal since its actually setting a “floor” on the price, making it really hard for the token to fluctuate below that point, so one would expect the token price to hover around the reserve price target.

#4

There is a lot to unpack here, before getting into any specific answers I think its worth noting that the whitepaper is a work in progress document that we expect to evolve as we progress from research to implementation.

How can jurors know if reputation or an “account” within a court is sold? (RE: End of https://github.com/aragon/whitepaper#31-collateral-and-reputation )

Reputation is non-transferrable so it is generally difficult (though not impossible) for it to be sold. There are hypothetical situations where the reputation could be sold, either because the account the reputation belongs to is a DAO itself and the DAOs governance tokens are transferrable, or perhaps it could be sold if access to the account’s private keys could be transferred. However, these approaches are probably not particularly practical. The benefit of using non-transferrable reputation is that due to its illiquidity it is more difficult for someone to quickly acquire a large enough portion to have a significant effect on the outcome. Jurors (and anyone else) won’t necessarily be aware if reputation is sold, but in the event that there is a malicious actor that somehow manages to gain a significant portion of reputation then network can respond by forking out the malicious actors and be confident that it will be expensive in both time and money for the attacker to repeat the process.

How can a bribery attempt be proved or detected by the Review Count Jurors? Other than by observing the juror is voting “in such a way that is not coherent with the jurors code of conduct”?

The intention with the code of conduct and review process is to minimize the impact of obvious bribery attack vectors. The most significant of which is probably one of the parties soliciting a bribe when they submit evidence to support their claim (because this is a direct channel to the jurors and guarantees that the jurors will all see the bribe). Such a bribe presents a coordination issue for jurors who are trying to maximize their rewards by predicting the behavior of the other jurors, however, by prescribing a specific course of action with penalties for non-compliance it makes the coordination game for the jurors easier. So while it may not be possible to detect all possible forms of bribery, it should help mitigage some of the most concerning bribery strategies.

4 - In the case of a 55%-45% jury voting, would the 45% loose reputation in a case where there seems to not be a clear vote/side?

Currently it is assumed that a pure majority is required to reach a decision and if that decision is accepted by the parties (not appealed) then the people who did vote for that outcome would loose reputation. Its certainly possible to think about different variation on these parameters. We are looking into analyzing the process and parameters using Agent Based Modeling. I’ve had some preliminary conversations with Piotr from Incentivai specifically about this. :slight_smile:

5.A - “When” do you expect that low volatility will be achieved by ANT? What circumstances must happen in the market?

The low volatility aspects of ANT is probably furthest out. Beyond the technical implementation, its important that there is a reliable source of revenue for the network. One source could be fees generated by the court, another source of revenue could come from deploying some of the networks capital in something like a Staking Pool. By establishing a reliable source of revenue first, we make the stability mechanism significantly more robust because the network would be able to issue credible external bonds backed by future revenue. There is another thread that talks about the importance of revenue for a stability mechanism here.

5.B - How can Aragon respond to an accusation or any sort of manipulation due to programmatically managing “both the supply of ANT and a stability reserve based on a price target”? Could this become a “legal” issue? (Stability Reserve plays a part on this).

I don’t see any reason this would be a legal issue (particularly if it is programmatically and transparently managed), but I am not a lawyer.


#5

Hi Light, @dxiri, @lkngtn thank you for the great answers you have given me so far. I really appreciate it :relaxed:


#6

Usability drives everything we develop! One of our product goals is to set the highest Dapp usability standard in crypto. We hope the current Rinkeby release reflects this!

We have a very talented designer in Jouni. @bpierre brings the design to life with a close eye on design optimization. He enhances the design through its implementation, rather than detracting from it.

We’ll continue to improve usability as the product develops. @bpierre has made improving product accessibility one of his high priority goals.

We’d appreciate any feedback you have on how the product can be easier to use. Is there anything that stands out to you today in particular, i.e. that may have sparked this question?