Āut Labs
  • Āut Labs
  • The Āutonomy Matrix
  • $AUT Token
  • Framework Intro & Components
    • Āutonomy Matrix
    • The Participation Score
      • More about Expected Contributions
    • ĀutID: a Member< >Hub bond
    • Interactions, Tasks & Contributions - a context-agnostic standard.
    • Contribution Points
      • Calculating eCP and other dependent & independent params
    • The Hub - or, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
    • Roles on-chain. If there is Hope, it lies in the Roles
    • Commitment Level as an RWA
      • Discrete CL Allocation
    • Peer Value
      • Flow & aggregation of value
  • 🕹️Participation Score
    • Design Thinking
      • Problems with traditional Local Reputation parameters
      • Innovation Compared to other “Local Reputation” protocols
      • Hub<>Participant Accountability & Rewards
    • Core Parameters
    • Formulæ
    • Edge Cases
      • 1. The Private Island
      • 2. Cannibal Members
      • 3. The Ghost & the House on Fire
    • PS Formula for all Edge Cases
    • Conclusions
  • 🎇Prestige
    • Prestige: introducing measurable credibility for a DAO
    • Need for a DAO to measure its KPIs overtime (on-chain)
    • Archetypes
      • Defining an Organizational Type
      • Existing Organizational Types
      • Deep-dive: Calculating current Parameters (p)
    • Formulas for Prestige
      • Normalization of p
    • Prestige for all edge cases
      • Relationship between Prestige & Archetype parameters
    • How to expand Prestige through external Data Sources
    • Use-cases & Conclusions
  • 🌎Peer Value
    • Initial Applications
    • Relationship between Participant, Hubs & Peer Value
    • Peer Value (v) as a directed graph
      • Calculating normalized Participation Score (PS'')
      • Calculating normalized Prestige (P'')
      • Calculating the Contributor Archetype (a)
    • The Peer archetype
      • Formulæ for α & deep-dives
      • Formulæ for β & deep-dives
      • Formulæ for γ & deep-dives
    • Conclusions & Initial Applications
  • ⚽Appendices & Playgrounds
    • PS Simulations
    • PS Playground
    • Prestige Simulations
    • Prestige Playground
Powered by GitBook
LogoLogo

PARTICIPATE

  • Website
  • ĀutOS
  • Hub Explorer

© Āut Labs 2025

On this page
  1. Participation Score
  2. Design Thinking

Problems with traditional Local Reputation parameters

In traditional research, parameters tend to be subjective (e.g., Social graphs; social reviews) - with inconclusive results, generating systems with very little standardization and accuracy, while at the same time allowing very little customization. On the other hand, in practical engineering and system design, the early years of the internet (web “1.0”, web “2.0”, etc.) showed a tendency to build systems that are - yes, rigorous on one side, but forcing users to adapt to system’s rules, rather than systems adapting to users’ behavior.

Both have their merit - but, in order to move past “instant gratification,” a solid “humane” system design needs to aim for highest possible degree of abstraction and flexibility (resilience over robustness), while utilizing parameters that reflect the human value provided by the participating parties / actors involved.

In a nutshell:

  • The system needs to be designed for long-term results (no instant gratification / social proof)

  • Everything needs to be measurable, and follow a rigorous first principles, scientific method. Meaning that the subjectivity should come “locally” from the customization of parameters, not from the parameters themselves.

PreviousDesign ThinkingNextInnovation Compared to other “Local Reputation” protocols

Last updated 10 months ago

🕹️