Hey jaensen, glad to see you here.
As you might have seen in previous discussions, I’ve spent some time digging into the structural limits and alternative topologies for Circles, such as framing it through Hawala mechanics, using it for open-source distribution, and introducing AI Agents for network accountability of sorts.
I have a few fundamental questions regarding the broader architecture. Empirical research on basic UBI models (like the OpenResearch/OpenAI study) highlights that unconstrained, unaccountable issuance models face severe structural decay, a point I raised earlier, both here and in person.
Recently, my focus has been on stateless blockchain architectures using block-lattice structures. Given that UBI mechanisms struggle in atomized environments but hold up under localized, high-accountability networks, do you see a path where core elements of Circles are wrapped in strict accountability layers and an Actor System for cross-chain execution (e.g. Saga Intents)?
Sociologically, the group topology in Circles holds far more promise than individual issuance. If we frame it as a micro-credit or mutual-credit vehicle centered on group interaction frequency and quality, distribute individual tokens via merit-based ranking engines (like TinyMeritRank), and run mini-DAOs over self-hosted infrastructure with SIWE + OIDC mappings, the execution landscape changes entirely.
I’ve been looking for an opportunity to explore these dynamics through the lens of Quantum Social Science, applying formal mathematical models from quantum mechanics to sociological trust graphs.
Would love to hear your perspective on this direction, either here or in a dedicated thread, and open the floor to anyone else who has worked on Circles and wants to speak freely on the architecture. Thanks!