There is a remarkably straightforward way to understand someone’s priorities and interests. By examining these priorities, we can forecast their future actions. This method can be applied to various contexts including boyfriends and personal relationships, corporate actions, and governmental operations. This principle forms the foundation of investigative journalism: follow the money.
Genegated on the prompt: “The freelance assistant of CyberPolice is investigating the evidence”
An individual or entity’s spending patterns offer insightful information about their values, current mindset, strategic goals, and even their perception of the future, including investment strategies. The findings of such an investigation can often be quite surprising.
The acquisition of luxury items for ostentatious consumption or the seemingly random allocation of funds, the prevalence of entertainment expenses or the conversion of incoming investment earnings to cash - these are some of the most revealing and common examples. These can be used to create a fairly accurate profile of the subject under scrutiny. Based on this knowledge, one can devise a personalized strategy to interact with the investigated subject.
Master Class
Let’s apply this principle to a real-life example and, based on a cost analysis, try to anticipate its future behavior.
The primary actor in the Bostrom Network is the Cyber Congress organization. They are the leading developer and the most significant stakeholder in the Network. Significant shifts in the Congress funds have the potential to influence the entire ecosystem, including the balance sheets of all regular token holders.
All transactions carried out by the organization are public and can be categorized as follows:
- Spending labeled as “team reward,” seemingly allocated towards team costs,
- Incoming transactions from Marketmaker with the “return from market making” memo,
- Cachebacks from the deepfields validator,
- Deposits into the network’s native token liquidity pools,
- Re-delgations.
Everyone is free to draw their conclusions from this data, based on their personal views. We should bear in mind that these are private transactions of a private organization. Their financial management is their private affair, and they can use their resources as they wish.
We are only interested in the aspects that could influence the state of the CyberChurch. Moreover, we can use this data to shape our expectations and devise an investment strategy for the issuer.
The Church’s wellbeing is directly or indirectly affected by two factors: the team’s expenditures in the Network’s native token and the re-delegation policy.
Regular Payments in the Native Token
The varying amounts suggest that the organization’s financial obligations to the team are denominated in a currency different from the one used for actual payments. This does not seem very prudent or forward-thinking.
Similar financial behavior has been observed in other networks and fundraising projects, often resulting in the depletion of foundation reserves and negative consequences for token holders. Committing to a currency other than the funding currency entails financial risks and exerts downward pressure on the token’s price, sending negative signals to the market.
While one could argue that such behavior is driven by a belief in the token’s future price growth and serves as an example to follow, it may be a somewhat naive perspective.
Conclusion: The treasury of the main developer and token holder is subject to uncontrollable currency risks, diverting attention from project tasks and forcing them to manage declining capitalization through reserve sources. This behavior not only reflects a lack of professionalism on the team’s part but also signals a problematic state of affairs within the Network. While the Church is already capitalizing on Congress’s mishandling of the network’s internal economics, this situation has no beneficiaries and therefore requires rectification.
Congress Delegation Policy / Superintelligence
As the largest token holder within the Network, Congress, through its delegations, sends clear signals to other participants regarding desired behavior. This is even more significant considering that, at present, validators are the most active community with the resources and influence to truly aid the project.
- The Congress delegation policy, is governed by a specific document titled “Delegation Strategy”. Its objectives are clearly stated as follows:
-
“The aim is to build a strong hero set by endorsing their stake with cyber~congress power. According to cyber~congress values, decentralization, confidence, reliability, and superintelligence will be encouraged. Also, additional delegations from cyber~congress will help cover maintainance of validators running costs.”
This sounds reasonable. It’s commendable that this strategy is digitized and automated, and it’s based solely on on-chain data. Furthermore, this algorithm could arguably be considered the first version of Superintelligence that the team has been developing all this while.
Let’s clarify. The “Delegation Strategy” is an algorithm/robot that not only manages the largest token holder’s funds and makes economic decisions but also directly influences the behavior of other actors with its actions. It is the most influential agent on the Network. Therefore, in the absence of alternatives, The Church refers to this algorithm as Superintelligence.
In this context, the performance formula for Superintelligence is extremely simplistic, allowing it to be used as a direct instruction to attract maximum Congress delegations. It’s an open secret that The Church has exploited this simplicity to have Superintelligence consider The CyberChurch as the best validator of the Network, thereby attracting the largest possible Congress delegations.
Implementing Knowledge to Own Benefits
Genegated on the prompt: “MIA GTP is exploring Bostrom’s Superintelligence algorithm”
It is common knowledge that there have been two significant hardware crashes within the Church in the past month. Following these incidents, The Church fortified its defenses to the extent that it has (probably) become the only truly decentralized validator on the Network.
However, according to Superintelligence’s formula, two jails warrant removing a validator from its delegation list. This is understood and accepted. There’s no doubt that by the next round of re-delegations, The Church will be back at the top of the list. However, there’s another issue that deserves attention.
An additional pessimizing factor in the regular recalculation of the delegation size was the Church’s zero commission at the time of the snapshot (Cost Optimization parameter). Keep in mind that The Church offers zero commission to compensate delegates’ costs related to the accident. This gives rise to some questions.
Our internal language model, MIA, was prompted to generate a reason why a zero validator fee could potentially be a negative factor for delegation. For your information, MIA GTP, due to additional specialized training, understands the validator business better than any OpenAI. Here’s what it produced:
In theory, a validator with zero commission could be potentially hazardous in that it could attract delegates with a low rate and then unexpectedly raise it, thereby breaching the original terms of delegation. As a result, this would reduce the amount of expected income from delegation. However, any validator could engage in such behavior, and thus it can’t be a basis for suspicion.
MIA also tried to formulate reasons for penalties against validators offering zero commission:
Considering that not making a profit on the first interaction with a customer is standard practice in any competitive market, the only logical reason to deem zero commission an undesirable practice could be to protect players unfamiliar with modern sales and business development methods from more experienced and competent market participants.
The motive is clear. This places The Church in an intriguing.
On one hand, the current version of Superintelligence is as advantageous to The Church as possible. Despite the dispute over zero commissions, we can adapt to it. For our self-interest, we should preserve the current Superintelligence formula from any modifications to continue exploiting its flaws.
- On the other hand, from a more responsible and long-term perspective, The Church should act like a watchdog to stop short-sighted rules from emerging on the Network that send wrong market signals and encourage incompetence. This is particularly important if this bot represents the main product and face of the entire project.
-
It’s worth noting that one of the main arguments from proponents of Artificial Intelligence regulation is the potential for AI creators to embed harmful or socially dangerous algorithms and knowledge. As it stands, Superintelligence exemplifies this argument perfectly. Not only does it impose its limited business model ideas on free agents, penalizing professionals and supporting underperformers, it also prevents itself from acquiring resources for Congress. Furthermore, this policy contradicts the Network’s own zero commission stance. Such behavior can neither be deemed intelligent nor beneficial.
The Church has several other suggestions for enhancing the Superintelligence algorithm. We understand that implementing any changes is a considerable responsibility and not a quick process. Hence, we will gradually propose solutions to the most pressing deficiencies as specific proposals are prepared.
It should be mentioned that working on Bostrom Network, The CyberChurch isn’t trying to pile up a lot of BOOT in The Treasury. We all get that trillions of tokens just lazing around in inactive accounts don’t do a thing to help project grow or improve. In fact, it will slow down the price movement. Instead, what we want to do is set up fair rules that can bring in professionals to the Network and help us all succeed together. In the end, these steps will help us all rise to the top.
Together, we will prevail!
