Hey James!

Thank you for elevating the level of this conversation. I appreciate you took the time to read and understand my post.

I have some comments and some questions for you. Hopefully this will bring us closer to a common ground of understanding.

That "future time" doesn't exist, even as the limit of samples approaches infinity.

Is this a claim that the allocation of respect is not intended to converge, not even within a probability distribution, to anything different from the changing belief of the community on how respect should be allocated? So, it wouldn't matter at all if, for example, according to some standardized metrics an external observer considers that community consensus is somehow wicked?

In other words, are you saying that the whole protocol is being designed so that the distribution of respect will always be an entirely subjective function whose only role is to represent the belief of the community?

#Re: Complex Systems

You are correct that the Butterfly Effect is a result from chaos theory and not network science as the post claims. That said, in no part the OP claims that a complexity is a requirement for chaotic behavior. What the OP says is that complex systems such as FD ones can exhibit chaotic behavior. I am convinced that to be the case. I must admit however that when searching in the scientific literature, this seems to be a topic of current research.

#Re: Marketcaps

When reading this part of your response, my initial thought was that you have a strong argument here. Then I noticed that yes, marketcap is a consequence of perceived ROI and FD is a consequence of perceived contribution, they are different. Yet, both exhibit the same inaccuracy in measurement which (in both cases) is based on human perception; and both are based on statistical aggregates of that perception. So, marketcap and FD share the same measuring agents and a common statistical nature, what they do differ in is the object of measurement.

In all, I am not going to claim to be right in this point. But it wouldn't surprise me to see some pretty cataclysmic events on big FD systems, such as the ones we observed recently on the crypto market.

#Re: the variance of sincerity

Suppose you happen to be in a group of 6 people where 3 of them rank themselves as L6 contributors. That means that only 3 people out of 6 are surely trying to measure the system impartially. That is a probable 50% loss of the thought/measuring power for the selection of the most relevant level of that group. Also, without a second thought, the 2 players who missed the L6 spot will rank themselves as L5. That's a probable 40% loss of measuring power for the second most relevant position. Add to this the fact that in that room you may have designers ranking the work of developers or musicians ranking the work of physicist. What do you end up with? I'll tell you: Pure noise.

I'm all for self promotion. I think people should do incredible pitches when presenting their contributions both during and prior the breakout sessions. But, during the breakout session, the whole point and number one priority is to accurately measure value. That number one priority is best accomplished if everyone forgets about himself and focuses on actually assessing other people's contributions.

Thanks again. Let's hope for the best for all the people who is contributing to this cause.