First off, love the model. I think the three points you chose are very relevant at this point. It’s interesting to think about actors with very high information and low sincerity, and visa versa. A bad actor with a lot of knowledge could do some damage by presenting things in an overly-complex way, ad the other may be driven to vote for them in honest selection.

One thing missing is the attendance aspect. Perhaps a value 0-1 of how likely a user is to show up at a meeting.

As you allude to, it’s not perfect, but it is a good measure of the state of a given community if it were possible to measure each member. And it’s good to get a feel for simulating what a new community may be like in terms of efficiency of rewards.

As far as my personal critiques on fractal Gov in Fractally, the problems and solutions I see are outside of the scope of this model. I’m not doing a good job communicating how to make it better, as a reciever is required in the communication model, so I invite you to walk beside me towards building solutions at https://lu.ma/cxc

And because of the complex nature of the system, this anything is really important.

This is the key feedback I’d like to focus on. Let’s break these into good and bad things. An efficient system creates a sort of “crystallization” of good ideas that can be shined to other parts of the system, and serve as a base, foundation, and source material for future growth.

To examine a system like this in a one-dimensional metric like fairness ignores the more real and more ethereal benefits that a system may incur 1) at any given meeting, but more importantly 2) as a value-growth of future contributions compared to the current ones. This second point is the real value I feel isn’t well explored in current F-Gov systems

Critical Thinking

Each of these networks will likely be governed by its own tweaked version of Fractal Democracy.

What framework can be used to ensure interoperability between fractals and also allow them to introduce their own unique ideas?

It is assumed that this respect token is considered by most participants as desirable to acquire.

How can this value be used to improve the system? Perhaps increasing voting power of token holders, allowing other use cases outside of curation of content.

How can we determine common use cases?

What token standards and protocols could facilitate these use cases?