Trade-off between subjectivity and usability
The Subjectivity / Exploitability Tradeoff is a concept discussed by Vitalik in an article. Subjectivity is often seen as a curse in the world of cryptocurrencies because it introduces external factors from the real world into the crypto economy. This can lead to issues such as manipulation, takeovers, and fraud. The protocol itself cannot distinguish between truth and lies, making it vulnerable to attacks like Epistemic Takeovers, P + ε attacks, and 51% attacks by wealthy actors. While an objective system that relies only on information provided through the protocol may seem ideal, it is actually susceptible to takeovers and not a good tool for analyzing equilibrium in game theory. To address this, Subjectivity is necessary. Subjectivity brings in the human element that cannot be detected by pure cryptographic technology. It allows for concepts like manipulation, takeover, and fraud to be understood in the context of the human society surrounding the protocol. One example of subjectivity is Subjective democracy, where decisions are made based on the consensus of all participants. If there is disagreement, the blockchain or DAO can be forked to implement different decisions. Each fork is allowed to exist, and the choice of which fork to follow is left to the surrounding community. Subjective democracy is a non-coercive form of governance where individuals are not forced to accept situations they disagree with. Another example of subjectivity is applying it to the SchellingCoin mechanism. In the objective version of SchellingCoin, participants vote on a question, and the majority receives a reward. However, improvements by Paul Sztorc introduce subjectivity by penalizing minority voters and increasing the stakes for being on the wrong side of a controversial question. This raises the bar for attacks like the P + ε attack. Subjectivity can be beneficial by preventing exploitation, as long as it is not abused. Users prefer to ask questions on forks where the truth-tellers have more influence, incentivizing the pursuit of truth. The Decatography algorithm can also be applied to subjectivity. Users answer questions and receive coordinates if their answers align with the majority. This creates a Social Graph and establishes them as an Oracle. However, there is a problem of collusion, where users can input incorrect answers without punishment if there are no penalties. This issue is discussed in Vitalik's paper on DeCartography. In this system, users stake project tokens and participate in tagging problems. If there is consensus, everyone receives points. If there is disagreement, individuals can bet on the outcome. The majority receives rewards. Choosing a different approach amidst the focus on data science can be beneficial for the world. It allows for the consideration of subjective factors and prevents the exploitation of objective systems.