Okay, trying something here try to log in
from my personal account. Well, also, here we go, looks like that worked. So I can invite myself to cohost.
Plars adding you as a speaker, Trey. I've invited you to speak.
If you're not on mobile yet, please do.
use the mobile so you can come up to the stage. This is fun. This is the whole point where I have a second phone. And the only reason why I kept my old phone.
is so that I can launch as one account and join to speak as another account. So Polaris, how are you doing?
Jam Jam I'm good. How are you bro? Welcome everyone. Welcome to our space Can can you guys hear me? Yep, perfectly loud and clear can hear you and Polaris
We also have no digitty on the stage. Welcome, node.
Hey y'all, how's it going today? Doing pretty good. And I think we're meant to have one more speaker on here, up here, so I just sent an invite to Sassin.
And, Sassan, I've invited you to speak, same if you could be on mobile. Oh, there you go. You're up here, or connecting at least.
Cool. Well, while Sesson goes ahead and connects, why don't we go ahead and just set the stage here a little bit and give an opportunity to our guest speaker to give an introduction to themselves and then we can kind of kick off the discussion.
Welcome everyone to another Twitter space here hosted by Entology. Entology is a project that's been building in the space of Web 3 identity and data for some time now and building the tools to be able to deliver that to our ecosystem. And for those of you
who are new, please do feel free go to oint.io, check out the information on what this means and the identity stack that Entology has developed and how that is being used within the ecosystem. I personally, my name is Humpty Calderon.
I will be the host, co-host of this chat along with Plarris and our guest Shrein and some of the people that will be coming up to the stage pretty soon. And we're going to be talking today about pushing the identity frontier in Web 3. So maybe first introduce
producing generally identity from a Web 2 sense and what it means to be able to push that frontier in the Web 3 sense. And so without further ado, Polaris, why don't you give a brief intro to yourself and then we'll give it over to Shrey to do the same.
Absolutely, thanks, I'm T for allowing me to come up and have a few words. I'm always grateful. Hi everyone, I'm Polaris and I'm one of the ontology
hardmengence and also a node validator. But first and foremost I'm a huge you know ontology fan because of
decentralized data element and decentralized identity, sorry, element. And that fascinates me because as we move forward into the web rounds of Web 3, it's becoming more
and more clear that in order for us to have a cohesive blockchain integration with different business formats, we need some sort of identity.
And of course, if it's like a centralized identity, then the whole concept of blockchain integration kind of like goes down the drain. So yeah, so that kind of like really
magnetizes me towards ontology and as a result, I'm pretty active with all the community participation and all the events and I try to also co-host as many spaces and
discussions around educating and just, you know, wiping on that information. So that's a bit about me. Thanks. Yeah, wonderful. Thank you, Shrey. How are you doing? Get to have you on the
answering a hypothesis that I have around what, why communication and coordination is going to be changed in a very meaningful way in the blockchain that we've yet to see and to better understand that, I'll just give a bit of a build up. And so when we think about the role that technology has played in communication,
And as an effect coordination, we can look at the first forms of communication where eyes and individual want to send a message to words to someone else that may have lived across the town. In order to do so, I may have had a messenger. And so I may have told them something and they would have said, you know,
I had to communicate my message to someone else that I had to trust to communicate that message properly to another individual. And then we learned how to write and that messenger was maybe replaced with an animal or some sort or still a human and it may have given a piece of paper to that individual to then send that message. And then the fidelity of these messages continued to increase because I
can rely on the fact that the information that I want to get there is guaranteed in the writing as compared to someone having to relay that message and trust that they'll say it in its full form or not tamper with it. But I still am exposing the message itself to this messenger. And then we came up with the envelope which if you look at the time series it's still like a non-negotiable amount of time it took to
the envelope after we had this other messaging system. Now I can have some form of guarantee on the privacy of which my message would be transmitted to another individual and have some guarantee us to whether or not I could predict or whether or not a messenger had intervened with that message. Based on any reps or terrors in that envelope itself. Then we can get to today where we
We've got a more digital form of communication, and there's obviously some gaps I'm probably missing in this timeline. But this digital communication where it feels so rigorous, it feels somewhat private to the extent that maybe many humans feel as a sufficient threshold for privacy. But we still end up revealing a lot of information about ourselves.
And it just so happens that these cryptographic primitives, or there'd be multi-party computation, and for those of you who aren't familiar with any of these terms, can go into later, zero knowledge proofs or other, that we're still able to influence and change human behavior in a way that makes it much less invasive for me as an individual, but we're still able to achieve the same outcome.
And I think we've yet to understand that the influence of these cryptographic primitives have on coordination in enterprise settings specifically or in other settings like finance for how we settle a bank contract or how we think about coordinating for social movements. And so I think that right now I'm just trying to work on how do we get large groups of people to coordinate and
Before we can even get to this coordination problem, we need to really understand who are the people involved in this coordination effort and that just so happens, we need to understand how people present themselves and that's where decentralized identity comes into play. So I'm building myself up to this idea of coordination, but in order to do so, I need to start at the first level of who's coordinating.
That's an interesting framework that you've presented here in terms of communication as a whole and looking at it from this historical lens and the evolution of it over time and then the privacy
needs and developments that occurred in these very analog ways. I guess I wonder, is there a parallel today in terms of these communication standards that has evolved in terms of
for more privacy and maybe is there a parallel with that type of communication layer in the public blockchain space where there is a need for these privacy standards to be developed?
Yeah, I mean, and Polaris, so free to jump in whenever, but I think right now like the analogy from the analog setting would be I have a messenger that may need a relay information whether that messenger currently be any like web to incumbent institution that I have some sufficient amount of trust is not intervening on my data.
But I can't actually, like I as a normal individual can't go and see like is a company looking at my dad and like I I don't know I'm hoping that there's there's being some betting being done and that there's some internal here are six that people are following but do I know I don't and so this is kind of analogous to like a messenger in the in the writing session in the writing session
I don't really know, maybe there's an envelope that I trust as being secure, but I have no guarantees. But now we have these cryptographic permutives where I have a guarantee of whether or not someone can view or not view my message based on public private key infrastructure and these other privacy techniques that are
So the need for that may be the canonical example of the fact that we've referenced zero knowledge proofs to solving how much we disclosed and going into a bar of being over 21 and we still haven't proven out that setting.
Just shows how much progress we still need to make in these lower hanging solutions, but even in the higher hanging ones, where I want to communicate on a protocol to someone else, but I don't want to have a platform see it. Now I can provide some guarantees that they won't be able to see that information, because only those who I provide access to it will be able to.
That's amazing, I'm really loving it. And I think the whole thing has changed really. I mean, the way we do business, the way we interact, the way we communicate and you
Yes, the Internet revolutionized the whole space and it gave us huge amounts of information. But it's come to a point that we have hit information
overload and now again we're going back to the start of the equation which is that we're paying people who we trust have got the right information to part that information with us
And the same situation is happening in all different fields of life because there's so much we don't know which is which basically. In terms of communication and validation, right, people have got killed in the past for being responsible.
For a message which they haven't signed we're going back 100,000 years back by the way and you know Message authentication. I believe is the most important thing and then from the message authentication, right?
some sort of trust is developed and then from that trust, right, some sort of transaction is made based upon all the previous information. So I'm fascinated that, you know, that you're looking at it from this angle. But then looking at it from a technological
perspective, yes, we are definitely at a precipice where we can authenticate our means of communication. But let's not go too deep into the means of communication. We don't need that anymore actually because
The information which we are concurring from your blockchain activity is a communication. It is actually a means of communication.
And considering that the population of the world has increased so much in order to have like that cohesive beehive type of interaction with the whole world.
You don't need to go down all these different routes. You just need like, you know, a form of identification.
which also becomes a form of communication and that form of communication and identification also becomes a form of trust. I hope that makes any sense. But yeah, amazing. Brilliant to have you over here, bro. And let's keep the conversation flowing.
Totally. I'm wondering what direction Humpty you want to take this in given the title of the talk is pushing the frontier forward, maybe talking about the state today and like what specifically needs to be improved on or yeah, I'm curious to know how you want to go about this. Yeah, certainly I like the idea.
Well, I think you've already kind of framed it. And the word frontier to me definitely has a very legacy connotation in terms of like looking so far back to something that was so long ago and functionality that was so primitive with
And then looking at it from the lens of today in terms of the improvements that we've made but still maybe even considering us at this frontier right where Others in the future will look back and say wow I can't believe that they that's those were there the way that they communicated
And I can't believe that that's the way that they chose to define or the limited ways that they were able to define their identity. So yeah, let's go ahead and do exactly that then, Trey. Why don't we explore then kind of where we've been and kind of some of the improvements that have been made thus far?
Totally. So I think in order to frame this it might be helpful to first sort of better understand what are the goals of the system that we're trying to design and the way that I've thought about it is in Web 3 today and in particular
And there's four key goals that I'm working towards right now. And there's other goals that I think we've already achieved. So the four goals that I think I'm really working towards are we have yet to really see privacy at the scale or the fidelity that we want it at.
So, it's one part, so privacy. The second is being coercion resistant. So, if we want a system that can do the things that we're talking about with respect to governance and coordination, I should not be able to prove to someone else how I voted, even if I wanted to.
And by private, but again, I should not be able to tell what someone else voted for if they voted at all. These are just primitive definitions of coercion resistant and private systems. The other two principles we have yet to see is can we actually prohibit
blockchains or core goals within blockchains for identity systems to be censorship resistant. Meaning that if any user wants to send information or transaction and is willing to pay a fee for it, they're able to do so. And anyone is expected to see that information on chain. So do we have censorship resistant
systems. And finally is that do we have the ability for identity systems today to sufficiently interoperate on the blockchain? And that just basically means can a blockchain accept an input from an individual or from an identity of some sort and correctly process that information
So, if you do some predefined set of rules, and if they're able to do so, they're able to also return a correct output. So, in more layman languages, do we have solutions today for identity that can sufficiently operate with smart contracts? And so, do we have a system that can do all four of these things?
that can work with smart contracts, their private, their censorship position, and their coercion resistant. All these other things that people commonly reference within the soft-sauvered, undividual, and other, I think, are all subsets of these four principles. And so my answer to that is that we don't. And there's currently
what feels as though two camps of thought around how we do things. And there's two camps of thought are delineated by this distinction of doing things on or off-chain. And we need to stop, in my opinion, don't need to stop. We need to have more productive discussions around what is off-chain versus on-chain versus
is what are these outcomes and principles that we care about and then work backwards in figuring out what is the way to do that. And so for something like verifiable credentials or sold-down tokens or decentralized identifiers, these common referenced technical substrates that are associated with identity, they all have their, they're not necessarily can be carried
compared to one another, but all of these three primitives in their own right have some lack in their ability to do these four principles that I've talked about. And in an upcoming research paper that I have coming out, I propose a framework for how to be able to do this in a correct way that I can briefly talk about in this talk here.
Yeah, that's wonderful. And so, I'm sorry, Polaris. Go ahead, man. Just going to say yes, please, the LFG.
Yeah, so what I was going to say, I think there's this conversation that I think really kind of reached is Zenith sometime earlier this year where there was a debate between these off-chain and on-chain standards.
And the different kind of privacy preserving ways that it chose to or was able to interact with, you know, member identity and reputation building. And yeah, those two certainly VCE
and SVT's took front and center, I think, in terms of that discussion. I am truly interested to kind of hear your research because I personally too have some thoughts. And in fact, there's a project of which I am co-founder, which it is basically seeking to
bridge actually some of these challenges from some of the value proposition of VCs and the value proposition of NFTs, non-transfer NFTs. So yes, please let's dive into that and let's kind of frame the discussion around that then.
Sounds great. So I mean before we even go too much into the weeds it might be helpful for the audience and everyone just like what is the value of blockchain? I'll pause quickly because I see Polaris' hand is up Polaris, do you want to add something quickly? Yeah I was going to ask you first before we move this further
You know like the off chain and on chain concept which you just mentioned earlier So as far as my understanding is concerned right some of the things right not every single thing in terms of business enterprises daily interactions or Or our association with media
is not going to require blockchain authentication but some of the stuff which we do on a daily basis does require blockchain authentication. So maybe the concept of the off-chain and on-chain is more around parallel to that understanding.
Or if my understanding isn't correct, so please, like, if you could, like, correct me. Yeah. Can you can you give an example of what you were talking about when we say like a blockchain is needed? Like, where are the areas that you think it is needed for context as compared to not? Perfect. So like, for example, you know, university,
degrees in the future like you know the way they're being stored at the moment or the passports which are being used or the way Catalonia voted you know for their independence a couple of years ago or like the way doctors are going to be so like you
know, because what's happening currently is that the way the storage of data is a big problem. And because the storage of data is being used in intranets, which are personalized in intranets, it can be very easily be penetrated. So, so as a result,
The first thing is that that data becomes vulnerable to getting hacked and it has been hacked even the FBI service have got hacked because the way
they have used it. So moving forward, getting all of that data and all of this authentication, which does require serious looking into in terms of
authentication. For example, if a surgeon is going to do surgery for someone in the metaverse with a
our headset. We need to know if that surgeon has been qualified from the right university and he's got the right credentials in terms of all of that stuff, that type of thing.
Yeah, so I think for me, at least the way I thought about it is, let's remove the word blockchain even from some of this, from these settings and just talk about why is a decentralized public ledger useful in identity solutions or in why is useful more broadly and then we can tie it back to identity.
So, in many coordination tasks today, the reality is that there's a lack of trust between the individuals that makes it much more compelling to build solutions that are whatever called trustless or whatever language that is commonly used.
And so the reason why public ledger is really useful in each of these settings is that if you have a shared state of knowledge, meaning the data that's either on the blockchain or the hash of that data lives on the blockchain, some form of proof of data that you've communicated on amongst parties,
that is decentralized meaning that data itself or the hash of that data lives are on different nodes that everyone agrees upon is in fact the state of that data. So you have a shared state of knowledge that everyone agrees on is true. That's immutable.
in the sense that you can't change it, as well as that it's deterministic in this sense that everyone agrees on it, and finally, it's sequential through our time. Meaning that if I want to go back and index on the state of information, I can do so. Now, what we don't want to have as a cost of these properties is privacy.
I think often times when we talk about on-chain versus off-chain credentials, people assume that you lose privacy guarantees when you put things on-chain. Well, again, privacy is a very own topic that I think has its loose definitions today, but I think we all
it can maybe potentially align on the definition of privacy, at least political setting of that. I should not be able to know a decision that you made or what vote that you made in a specific context. And if we can agree on that, you can abstract it to other domains, then I think that we have a good base understanding of what privacy is for this conversation.
And so, like at least in the context of what we've talked about in with fullbound tokens is that they have the ability to be private in that context. They have the ability to make sure that you should not know what kind of candidate voted for what. And we've done this with VKSBT as a project I work on within RICO, the Tazzi who
We created an open source repository for everyone to use on how to implement the ZKSBT. And so right now is like the reason why that is going to be useful is that currently it satisfies two of the key properties I talked about earlier. One is satisfies privacy and the second is that it satisfies
the ability to interact with smart contracts. And I want to just really emphasize why interoperating with smart contracts is really useful. If we're talking about Web 3, everyone has their own definition of Web 3. The way I see Web 3 is what is developed product market fit today and what has become very successful is
the ability to interact with these smart contracts. These rule based definitions of how things should operate and the ability to automate those definitions at scale. And we've seen that with DFI in particular where you had over a trillion dollars in the past year operate through DFI particles and we've able to do this in a way that relies
on smart contracts. And other applications like DAO's, communities in the NFT space, and other rely on some form on smart contracts as a key pillar of its solution. And so if you're not interrupting with smart contracts, you're an identity solution, but you're not working in Web3. That's one key thing that I would say.
And so if you want to be working in Web 3, you need to make sure your solution works with smart contracts. And unfortunately today, most of the solutions, which to be honest, is not that far or hard to implement if we put enough people and talent behind it, is to create a verifier scheme in solidity or viper for verifiable credentials
to work with smart contracts. Additionally, you've seen implementations from Gitcoin Passport or other teams that are working on these different identity solutions that are using DIDS like the PKH or the DIDKey method that have created really interesting work around to say, "Look, maybe you do not have
your solution as Solbound tokens, you're having them as verifiable credentials. But at least my Ethereum externally owned address wallet, which is basically your traditional wallet that's not a smart contract wallet, can have a private key that is also the steward and manager of the data of which your ceramic or whatever other data platform you're using.
But again, we suffer from these other types of challenges, which is coercion resistance and censorship resistance. And in particular to better understand that, I'll just briefly highlight this oracle problem that's faced an identity as compared to other settings. So today, when we think about
Oracle is the data that is being brought from off-chain to on-chain. The first property is readily available and the second property is easy to dispute. Let me explain why. Let's look at chain link oracles today that are widely used.
The price of Bitcoin, the price of the US dollar, or the price of anything else that's being used in a lot of these D5 protocols. The way that these oracles work is that you have an individual like Trial or Chainlink or other, you have what's called reporters. These reporters are sent out to go and search for information. The information can be based on a query
So, we might send out 10 reporters to go and look for the price of Bitcoin. And when you think about the price of Bitcoin, it's not that subjective of data. It's readily available and it's really easy to dispute because the price of Bitcoin is something that's
like accessible to everyone in this off-chain world. So let's say I as a reporter, I'm the first to bring it back to Chainlink and therefore because I'm first it's a time-based tool, my data is put on chain and I end up putting Bitcoin or Ethereum worth a million dollars. It's really easy for someone else to come in and dispute that because it's a
readily available information that someone can dispute and the repercussions of the data that I put on chain will not last that long, meaning that wrong information will only have very short time-based repercussions. Now let's talk about identity data. And when we think about identity data having an influence on people and the
that it could have, specifically from highly influential people. Let's say I bring a claim about myself for someone else on chain through an Oracle, whether that Oracle B, get CoinPastport because I data stored in a proprietary database and potentially not not BFS, you have this censorship resistant problem for one that maybe they're not going
to bring the data on chain because they could actually be an account that black less data from not coming on chain. And secondly, even when data is put on chain, you don't have the same guarantees that you do because the data is being brought on chain is highly subjective and not readily available. And so the time period at which you
might have information be put on train to the time in which it's actually solved and the impact that that could have negatively on people is non negligible. And so this oracle problem is significant that we need to figure out because if we don't, we can have all these challenging issues. And so I actually don't even see a potential
short term solution to this other than putting data directly on chain but having like the proof of your put on chain so we don't satisfy, we don't dissatisfy sorry the privacy property. So I just highlight some of these challenges that we're currently facing with like the permative today and so I'll pause there.
Wow, that's a lot of research. But there are different methods which we can use to start filtering down that information and authenticating it. For example, Idina, they work with
proof of human concept and then as opposed in the future if you can't create a proof of human concept then that proof of human concept could also be like a proof of human PhD right the same concept could and then that PhD could be writing a thesis right and that thesis could be on
for everyone else to attest and then slowly we start building a leisure of information which is no longer ambiguous and it's much more streamlined but certainly the
current Oracle can be very easily manipulated and has, knowing the price of Bitcoin as you mentioned, like BTC gets manipulated left, right and center because of this. But then all of these other factions which are also associated with Oracle, they also get manipulated in the
same way and this is not the type of immutable or transparent future we want to leave for our kids. So certainly like you know people lots of love and appreciation for someone like you know taking their time out and trying to figure and solve these issues out on a very deep and intrinsic level well done. Amtie.
No, completely agree there with what's being said. You know, so I think you brought up an interesting point, Plarris said, and I'm not sure if I don't want to interrupt also the flow here, but you were talking about the different applications and the different verification methods to that are being developed
up to establish some sort of proof of personhood. And so, and I know that even to some degree, either directly or indirectly, Shreya, you were talking about Gitcoin in terms of proving some sort of identity with
within that ecosystem. And so I wonder, you know, what is the role or what are the opportunities maybe better said for some of the development in this space, either in terms of proving humanity through some sort of like capture
system like what IDNA is building through some sort of decentralized identifier and credentialing system that is open, like DID and I think like with ontologies building with ont ID or even through the I guess validating
of membership similar to like was being built through Gitcoin passwords. Like what is the role of all of these different identity purveyors and solutions in developing this trust and developing this feature in terms of identity?
Yeah, no, it's a great question. I think for those of you who haven't listened to it yet Kevin O'Walky started a new series around identity specifically on the Greenfield podcast and there's a lot of talk there specifically around like civil resistance and why some of these different tools today come into play to play
a specific role in it, and so there's much more thorough explanations there, but to give you my take on all the information that I've kind of seen with it is like right now there is a very compelling case to be made around why there's going to be a lack of social adoption in some of these proof of
personhood tools. And so depending on what background you're coming from, whether you remain anonymous, whether you feel a little bit of friction towards providing biometric data or whether or not you want to perform KYC or these other metrics of how we identify human
It just so happens that different groups of people are going to want to adopt different tools differently. And one of the more interesting long-term goals of what a civil resistance system could look like is through this model around web of trust. And so I'll tie it back to like where these
identity primitives play a role in it. But I want to briefly comment on this web of Trust Principle from a more sociological level and non-technical. And so there's this researcher who published this paper in the late 1800s and early 1900s called Gareximal who had this paper that focused more around
why in fact humans are unique people based on their social interactions that they have. And so what that paper outlines is the following. It says, look, every human being is born into a specific family or has some type of parents that enable them to be born, as well as goes to a classroom to be educated potentially, as well as interacts with
different friends or goes to a movie in a specific setting or does all these different things and different actions that they take and they do so with very unique sets of groups of people and so it's like every time I do something with the unique set of individuals the more interactions that I have over time I will eventually reach a point in my life where I can identify myself
as a unique person in this world. Because there's only so many people that can do these types of interactions throughout time. And so whether or not GaryXM will knew it back then, he created a very interesting algorithm for basically us to say, like, look, if we can trace interactions across people, we can in fact actually determine uniqueness. And this doesn't require someone to provide biometric data, it doesn't require us to
provide all these other types of very what feels like invasive to some communities types of information to do perfect personhood. Now look, now in order to have that system you still have the canonical cold start problem which is like who is in fact verifying this at the beginning? Who are like the parents are? How do we know they are in fact like the initial people that are in fact real
This is where you have this timeline of events taking place and why the solution is different at different points in time. This is a model that I know potentially people at WorldCoin without speaking on behalf of them but knowing some of the thesis that that team is voiced publicly and other teams who are working on proof of personhood is that
bio data or KYC and these other tools are a short term solution. They are not going to be what we do long term. But having these root number of people that we can verify exists and putting that either in a credential or a sold-out token or whatever their primitive we want to do to preserve privacy or these other types of pillars that I talked
So long as we can verify this threshold of people, we now have a network of people that can start verifying each other and verify these interactions I was talking about before, such that we can get to this gareximal view of proof of personhood where I don't really need to disclose anything. I can either rely on my app test stations or the
interactions and transactions that I have with people around me. And I should actually be able to choose what interactions I want to showcase to a specific verifier such that they can verify me. So, Soulbound Tokens and the way that we think about selective disclosure in both verifiable, credential and Soulbound Token land comes in a play there.
When we think about the state of selective disclosure, then we can look at that in different ways. In verifiable credential, you have two different ways of doing selective disclosure. You can do so with CL signatures or BBS+ signatures. In verifiable credentials, as I mentioned earlier, you can use different types of open source libraries with ZK
to be able to do this type of selective disclosure technique that I'm talking about. And what you would selectively disclose would in fact be these interactions with unique communities that what I hope one day will be something that a model could assess is in fact a unique person. And so I think like we're moving towards this direction of civil resistance and a
much less invasive way that is going to rely more on social and I think this idea that privacy is actually embedded within your social networks is not yet well-propagated but one that I think I believe strongly and humpty. Yeah, you know, it's interesting. So I would agree. I think, you know, a lot of our
identities can very much be defined by maybe some of our social interactions. In fact, one of the first things that I recall talking about when I first kind of explored, I started exploring the space of decentralized identity and really chatting with some of the folks that were
building in the space of decentralized identity, such as Philip Silva over at Bright ID, was the fact that like my identity, like just now making it personal here, my identity I chose to define it differently based on the groups of friends that I was interacting
So I could have a certain identity and now I'm talking about like of course many many years ago, before I was married and had a kid when I had the freedom to hang out so easily with like groups of friends but I would have a group of friends that identified as you know a dancer when I would go to a club and
say it starts self-soudencing, or identified as a skateboarder to a group of friends who I was skateboarding with on the weekends. And each of these groups really kind of informed my identity and much
of my, the attributes I suppose of who I was at that time were unique to that experience. So it's interesting to think of that in a digital sense, in terms of how digital identities can be informed by our social
I wonder if you've seen some of the ways that social graphs are being built today. And I have thoughts on this too, but I'd love to hear your thoughts first, or we can talk about it together, but I wonder if you've seen some of these social graphs that have been developed, and we'll start with maybe
Pride ID in terms of the graphs that they've created and the types of connections that people have made by joining these calls. Now, maybe loosely could be considered friends or connections based on how regularly they talk to one another outside of
of that initial connection and maybe furthermore looking at these graphs than that evolved to include in sense of mechanisms, like what's being done over a coordinate, a huge fan of them and the words
they're doing and really interested to kind of look at how this social graph starts to relay connections based on work and then maybe even extending that to like the work that's being done at Lens Protocol where now
that protocol is itself defining these graphs based on social connections and not just maybe one-off instances or work with people that you may not necessarily consider fronts.
Polaris, I see your hands up. You want to go first and then I can jump in? Yeah, so like
In my view, I think the future is going to be a collaboration of all of these ideas in one so that we could have that ultimate identity really. And the way I've seen in terms of those social interactions,
I mean, if you look at the history of mankind, right, we have always been, we've always tried to like, you know, like create certain groups and start associating those groups with that. So if you look at the art of astrology, for example, that more or less resonates on that in a primitive context where, you know,
mankind is divided into 12 different groups and then and whatever follows through with that In terms of social interactions now what I've noticed is that like you know when you have no choice then sometimes necessity becomes invention as well right and and like
For example, I've noticed that we've had issues where like Discord servers have been hacked and we've had issues where the social interaction really had to up their game in order to protect them.
cells and the community. And in order for the protection to happen, you know, the community came up with different ways of authenticating, authenticating. Like for example, some of the Discord servers, right, like we all work as gatekeepers as a community and we're extremely
We know each other and obviously humans are designed to spot different variations and then over the time it slowly, slowly becomes an identity but looking forward to eventually moving
moving into a web space where your movements eventually translate as your identity and that identity eventually translates as your gateway towards opening different opportunities but there is a lot of work to be done.
But saying that, I mean, I do see innovation happening on a daily basis. And when we can't evolve technologically, we're just using the proven methods already, but in a more technical way, that makes any sense.
Yeah, and to be clear like this is one of many solutions that people should be able to opt into. They shouldn't be forced to use one or other as I think in fact like to your point, how much the earlier is that like individuals do change quite a bit throughout time but also individuals interact differently.
At the same time, like people have different ways of interacting with different groups, not just throughout their life, but even at like a single point in time. And so like those interactions, I think are still going to be useful at predicting proof of personhood, but may not be something you want to do for like having the cross visibility of these identities be default, but have it
choose to be disclosed what you want to be like cross-pollinated between different communities. So I think really like identifying that the purpose of this is more so for I want to have a proof that I'm in fact a unique person and like I can do that in different ways. If I don't want to do it with my biometric data or do KYC to show like government information
I can do this with this other method that happens to also work. But if I don't want to do it through these other methods and I can choose to do it through whatever, I think a requirement that someone is able to prove that they are a unique person is one that I think we can all agree has its outsized returns positively for communities and networks. And so giving a set of
of plural solutions for people to be able to do that is what we should be striving for in a way that doesn't have to invade biometrics or other types of information. But yeah, I think it's something we're very far away from being able to do because we currently don't have the types of
data points to make those predictions. The NFTs that are on chain today is what wallet address purchased an NFT from a collection of 10,000, whereas we're only starting to see the emergence with tools like FARCaster, DSO, and Lens Protocol.
are much more web 3 social protocols that are starting to make it much easier to index the social data on chain. It's not just like what NFTs someone got from a community, but it's like the likes, the follow, the subtreets, the comments, and much richer
points of information often references like telemetry data as well like how long did someone spend on this. These are data points that should I choose to disclose can make it really easy for someone who's able to to protect while they're not I'm in fact unique persons.
Brother, you've got some amazing knowledge. You should join us every week. I mean, it's just been an amazing experience so far. And I'm just looking at the time when I'm like, Oh, damn, we've only got 11 minutes left.
I would love to like, you know, here you all night, but definitely Shre, I mean, we need to learn a lot from you, my bro. So please join us whenever you can. I know that this is not your time zone, but yeah, we're definitely willing to work around yours.
Appreciate it. Yeah, no, I really enjoyed coming out here and chatting with everyone and let me know what else we can maximize in this last 10 minutes. We'd love to discuss whether we've now I think we've talked about the state today. What's missing? What technologically might need to be advanced? We talked about civil-resistant challenges and where
the role, what else is of people's interest to potentially chat about in these last 10 minutes? Yeah, two things. Firstly, this is the first of a series of these more in-depth discussions. So really amazing to see this kick off.
So incredibly, I will second what Plarris has said to Shrey. I think this conversation has definitely been insightful and encouraging. And so wanted to also recognize that as a first in a series, the Plarris
is to host these with a monthly cadence for now. But I have talked to ontology about how we can actually dig deeper into these conversations in maybe in a more collaborative space. And so maybe some of you already know. I also host a podcast
cryptosapiens. And we dig into specific subject matter conversations like this one, particular looking at identity, Web3 identity as this one is titled, and then exploring the different kind of topics that can allow us to get a more comprehensive
of view and understanding of the technology and really beautifully framed like what we've just done today looking at it from the past, present, and future. And so the goal of that conversation that I had with Entology was to see if we can actually extend this series in collaboration with crypto sapiens.
in collaboration with Banclistow, which does have a pretty large audience to engage in this topic more deeply with people who can come up and ask really good questions to make the conversation move forward. So while the cadence currently is scheduled for monthly, I'm trying to make these
weekly and please do also check out Shreys Twitter account. He shared a really great tweet that in my opinion frames a lot of really good discussions to spawn together with the community. So I would like to use those as
as the topics of discussion is moving forward. And, of course, organically, if we discover like today some interesting topics to add that to the schedule. The second thing that I wanted to say was I want to recognize that we have other people on the stage, Sassan, Node, and Vito who raised your hand recently.
Please do participate in the conversation. Ask questions. If there's anything here that you want to learn more about or have some thoughts already about, please do. Hello. Thank you for your information about Ontology Network and its developments. I want to ask something.
about prize movement. I'm long-term investor in ontology but really I'm reading so much in this investment. Why it's
not going when we look to price. Why do forming developments occurred in the year? But when we look at the price, there is no
huge improvement or increase in the price. Why, what is the reason of this? I wondered this because I really believe in ontology and it's a hard work but I didn't understand the reason of this.
Sure. Well, I mean, firstly, welcome to the stage and glad to hear that you've been a longtime believer in ontology and supporting it. You know, I will rarely, if ever, talk about speculation and price and investment and all that stuff because I don't feel qualified to give financial advice to
to anyone. The one thing that I will say in terms of investment, if you chose to have that conversation is that investments like anything else like development requires long-term vision, right? And part of that requires research and level of understanding of whatever, you know, whoever you're betting on, if you will.
to make an impact in the space. Not talking directly about price, but talking about ontology as a project. The types of developments that have happened at the organizational level, you know, and the types of collaborations that are happening, you know,
with that technology and the incubation of projects too, even more recently, with what's happening with Orange Protocol. I would personally look at that as a way to measure whether I chose to believe in a project. And again, I'm not talking about whether to invest in that project, but whether I chose to believe in that project.
be a supporter of that. So, you know, I hope, you know, again, I rarely have ever talked about price, but I hope if that helps at least address some of your, you know, questions. But yeah, I mean, you know, I think anthology has done a tremendous job at being able to build out
technology that at one point was considered emergent and now we're starting to see not just the adoption of it but certainly the flourishing of the space. I personally because of the work that I do at a technology have been privy and privileged probably better said to work with a lot of these
developers and talk to them and be able to bridge the technology that's being built and even learn from how others are building it. So yeah, that's my two cents on that. Hopefully that addresses that. Anybody else know or, oh, Sussan dropped is no longer a speaker.
Thank you for anything. I guess my pleasure. Hi, Humpty. How do you do? I do. I don't really have any meaningful input or questions about what was talked about largely today because that was a lot of 50,000 foot information
that I don't even know what to start asking questions. But as far as layman's price action in the market, I have learned a lot of lessons and think I can clarify something without giving financial advice to Vito. And it's that when things get pumped up with a huge immense force from below, they usually fall from a huge amount
force from the top shortly after that. And it is kind of nice to see something that doesn't do that and is just building actual stuff with actual value that moves in an actual direction. So don't get your hopes down in general when you see things not like catastrophically going up and down. I
I think it's a really good sign and a sign of ontology's priorities being in the right places. I just wanted to throw that in because that is something I used to wonder when I was first investing in everything I bought did not immediately fly upward and I've learned that if it does you should be nervous. So, you know, that's it.
Thank you. I saw Ilya, you just came onto the stage. Hi guys, thanks for amazing conversation today. I'm super insightful. If I may ask some final question for Shrey.
It's a technical one. What do you think will be the next building block for the KZK protocols? What do you think about bulletproofs in specific and vertical trees?
this kind of stuff. Yeah. First of all, VK is a very big space. I think if I could talk about VK with an identity in particular, I think there's a series of limitations. One limitation
that I see right now is with the implementation that Enrico and I did is that it's computationally extremely inefficient in the sense where like if we want to run this on a browser, it takes a very long time for us to generate the proof. And so I think just figuring out
like browser limitations for ZKP could be something like one area to start. I think that in its own right maybe is a separate talk that we have in the series is like the role of minimal disclosure and identity and looking at going deeper into like BBS signatures, CAL signatures and ZKP.
like I said, it relates more broadly to these different provenivists. I think in the one minute we have left though, maybe a bit ambitious. For sure. Thanks. Yeah, I agree. A lot of options in the space with different trade-offs.
Thank you guys. Sorry. Yeah, that's it. See you soon. Thank you. Yeah, no, yeah, hopefully this is an incentive for you to come up to the stage a little sooner. That way we can definitely dive into those questions that
and have them branch out the discussion because to me, a lot of the value of these spaces honestly is through the questions that get asked because otherwise, I think at least for me participating in spaces often is that I find myself just repeating the same old thing.
I mean, that gets boring for me, but I also don't think that it generates a lot of value because anybody could just gone back and listen to another space that I hosted. But when a question comes up, it forces me to think about that and kind of provide an answer, hopefully,
or at least frame a response around that question or just be thoughtful about it and go and try to do more research to see how that can be addressed. But yeah. - Well that's the spirit I would say. I mean, no.
Yeah, wonderful. So we have reached the top of the hour. I truly can't believe how fast this hour went. Shrey, I think that just points to the incredible breadth of knowledge that you have and the ability to share that
with us in ways that are not at all too complicated, but certainly give us an ability to have a discussion around it. Hopefully, and definitely not with me, hopefully this is not the last time. And like I said with me, certainly I think
We're going to keep exploring this. Follow Shrey, please. I think Shrey's just adding tremendous value to the space in terms of the conversations. I can't wait for that paper to be published here research because I think that that's just going to be an incredible read.
Yeah, I'm excited to get that out and stay tuned and follow up a couple of works coming out, it's been a little slow, but I'm excited to share and would love for have follow up discussions around the pieces and I'm really excited.
Thanks everyone and we'll be in Bogotá for anyone else who's is gonna be there Sweet yeah, I'll be at Mcon next month. So Shrey, if you plan to be in the States for that, I would love
to meet you in person. Anybody who is going to be in Denver for Mcon would love to meet you all in person too. Great, thanks again guys. See ya. Thank you.