On Worldcoin, DAOs and digital identity black markets

Molly White has a great essay on Sam Altman’s iris scanning orb and its purported use cases.

Much of Worldcoin’s promises are predicated on the questionable idea that highly sophisticated artificial intelligence, even artificial general intelligence, is right around the corner. It also hinges on the “robots will take our jobs!” panic — a staple of the last couple centuries — finally coming to bear. Worldcoin offers other use cases for its product too, like DAO voting, but it is not the promise to solve DAO voting that earned them a multi-billion dollar valuation from venture capitalists.

Other use cases that Worldcoin has offered seem to assume that various entities — governments, software companies, etc. — would actually want to use the Worldcoin system. This seems highly dubious to me, particularly given that many governments have established identification systems that already enjoy widespread use. Some even employ biometrics of their own, like India’s Aadhaar. There’s also the scalability question: Worldcoin operates on the Optimism Ethereum layer-2 blockchain, a much speedier alternative to the layer-1 Ethereum chain to be sure, but any blockchain is liable to be a poor candidate for handling the kind of volume demanded by a multi-billion user system processing everyday transactions.

…

What will happen when you promise people anywhere from $10 to $100 for scanning their eyeball? What if that’s not dollars, but denominated in a crypto token, making it appealing to speculators? And what if some people don’t have the option to scan their own eyeballs to achieve access to it?

A black market for Worldcoin accounts has already emerged in Cambodia, Nigeria, and elsewhere, where people are being paid to sign up for a World ID and then transfer ownership to buyers elsewhere — many of whom are in China, where Worldcoin is restricted. There is no ongoing verification process to ensure that a World ID continues to belong to the person who signed up for it, and no way for the eyeball-haver to recover an account that is under another person’s control. Worldcoin acknowledges that they have no clue how to resolve the issue: “Innovative ideas in mechanism design and the attribution of social relationships will be necessary.“ The lack of ongoing verification also means that there is no mechanism by which people can be removed from the program once they pass away, but perhaps Worldcoin will add survivors’ benefits to its list of use cases and call that a feature.

Relatively speaking, scanning your iris and selling the account is fairly benign. But depending on the popularity of Worldcoin, the eventual price of WLD, and the types of things a World ID can be used to accomplish, the incentives to gain access to others’ accounts could become severe. Coercion at the individual or state level is absolutely within the realm of possibility, and could become dangerous.

On web3

(Note to self)

Moxie has some great thoughts on web3 even though what it really means depends on who you ask.

NFTs:

Instead of storing the data on-chain, NFTs instead contain a URL that points to the data. What surprised me about the standards was that there’s no hash commitment for the data located at the URL. Looking at many of the NFTs on popular marketplaces being sold for tens, hundreds, or millions of dollars, that URL often just points to some VPS running Apache somewhere. Anyone with access to that machine, anyone who buys that domain name in the future, or anyone who compromises that machine can change the image, title, description, etc for the NFT to whatever they’d like at any time (regardless of whether or not they “own” the token). There’s nothing in the NFT spec that tells you what the image “should” be, or even allows you to confirm whether something is the “correct” image.

web3 and Platforms (web2):

The people at the end of the line who are flipping NFTs do not fundamentally care about distributed trust models or payment mechanics, but they care about where the money is. So the money draws people into OpenSea, they improve the experience by building a platform that iterates on the underlying web3 protocols in web2 space, they eventually offer the ability to “mint” NFTs through OpenSea itself instead of through your own smart contract, and eventually this all opens the door for Coinbase to offer access to the validated NFT market with their own platform via your debit card.

At the end of the stack, NFT artists are excited about this kind of progression because it means more speculation/investment in their art, but it also seems like if the point of web3 is to avoid the trappings of web2, we should be concerned that this is already the natural tendency for these new protocols that are supposed to offer a different future.

Clients and Servers in the Decentralised Web:

One thing that has always felt strange to me about the cryptocurrency world is the lack of attention to the client/server interface. When people talk about blockchains, they talk about distributed trust, leaderless consensus, and all the mechanics of how that works, but often gloss over the reality that clients ultimately can’t participate in those mechanics. All the network diagrams are of servers, the trust model is between servers, everything is about servers. Blockchains are designed to be a network of peers, but not designed such that it’s really possible for your mobile device or your browser to be one of those peers.

With the shift to mobile, we now live firmly in a world of clients and servers – with the former completely unable to act as the latter – and those questions seem more important to me than ever. Meanwhile, ethereum actually refers to servers as “clients,” so there’s not even a word for an actual untrusted client/server interface that will have to exist somewhere, and no acknowledgement that if successful there will ultimately be billions (!) more clients than servers.

The increasing complexity of creating software:

At this point, software projects require an enormous amount of human effort. Even relatively simple apps require a group of people to sit in front of a computer for eight hours a day, every day, forever. This wasn’t always the case, and there was a time when 50 people working on a software project wasn’t considered a “small team.” As long as software requires such concerted energy and so much highly specialized human focus, I think it will have the tendency to serve the interests of the people sitting in that room every day rather than what we may consider our broader goals. I think changing our relationship to technology will probably require making software easier to create, but in my lifetime I’ve seen the opposite come to pass. Unfortunately, I think distributed systems have a tendency to exacerbate this trend by making things more complicated and more difficult, not less complicated and less difficult.