A reputation system would be nice if it:

• recognized PRE-DEPLOYMENT value in addition to POST-DEPLOYMENT value; else it is ready for first-mover advantage and gaming
• couldn’t be gamed, or at least had a method where gaming it could be easily detected & rectified
• recognized MULTIPLE modes of contribution, not just profit, or time, or connection, or…
• allowed the LONG-EXTENDED-EFFORT that goes into some breakthroughs, and not just transactional for short or instantaneous transactions…
• the object being acknowledged (transaction, talk, donation, support, action, etc) would be recorded in its raw form, SEPARATE and distinct from the “reputation” component of the “ledger entry”;
• the object remaining immutable, but augmentable, and
• the “reputation” component evolving over time, not static
• Reputation must be multi-dimensional / multi-factor.
• more later

It is simplistic and naive to believe it’s in a single currency or metric. Each of us has “different values”.

“Single transaction value” metrics, actually exchanged, fail to recognize and correct pre-transaction deception, and also fail to recognize “deep value”. “Deep value” in this sense representing that future impact that is not possible to recognize in the instant of a transaction or a record or enactment. So rather than having value / reputation be a STATIC event with a fixed metric that doesn’t change ever (“s/he’s been paid”), I prefer it being an object that evolves, with a “value pipeline” recognizing long-term contribution.

These thoughts first collected in response to a FB post from Angus Joseph, and response from Aaron Perlmutter.

Remind me sometime to tell a story about my grandfather’s medical school advisor in Japan…