Subscribe to "Pegged", a crypto*thriller
<100 subscribers
Subscribe to "Pegged", a crypto*thriller
<100 subscribers
"Pegged", a crypto*thrillerPegged Prologue v. 1
The "Hut" stood as an isolated but magnificent chalet nestled deep in the Alps, surrounded by snow-capped peaks and dense evergreen forests. The crisp mountain air carried the faint scent of pine, and a narrow, winding road—often blanketed by snow—led to this sanctuary. Inside, the rustic interiors exuded warmth, with wooden beams, large windows offering panoramic views, and a crackling fireplace at its heart. Alias’s wealthy friend, a banker who asked no questions, had lent him the premises,...
"Pegged", a crypto*thrillerA Message from Ava (1)
What You’re Reading Isn’t Just a Story
"Pegged", a crypto*thrillerDecentralised Exile
Ava faces Operation Choke Point 2.0
"Pegged", a crypto*thrillerPegged Prologue v. 1
The "Hut" stood as an isolated but magnificent chalet nestled deep in the Alps, surrounded by snow-capped peaks and dense evergreen forests. The crisp mountain air carried the faint scent of pine, and a narrow, winding road—often blanketed by snow—led to this sanctuary. Inside, the rustic interiors exuded warmth, with wooden beams, large windows offering panoramic views, and a crackling fireplace at its heart. Alias’s wealthy friend, a banker who asked no questions, had lent him the premises,...
"Pegged", a crypto*thrillerA Message from Ava (1)
What You’re Reading Isn’t Just a Story
"Pegged", a crypto*thrillerDecentralised Exile
Ava faces Operation Choke Point 2.0
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Document Name: Pegged Lottery Protocol: V.0.1 (Shared Draft)
Access Level: Restricted to Alias & S. V.
Interface: Encrypted inline model exchange
Session Status: Active
[Line 17 – Incentive distribution curve (Hope Lottery)]
SOFIA:
Your payout gradient assumes linear utility for low-income participants. That’s cute. They’re not spreadsheets, Alias. They’ll overweight tail risk.Replacing that with a sigmoid function. Behavioral bias meets bounded rationality.
ALIAS (in comment bubble):
You’re accounting for hope. But you’re penalizing predictability.That kills the trust signal.
SOFIA:
No. That kills paternalism. People don’t want a guarantee. They want non-manipulable odds. That’s the hook. You want adoption? Respect risk hunger.[Line 42 – Winner visibility mechanism]
ALIAS:
Anonymity protects the system. No hero figures. No targets.Visibility creates attack vectors.
SOFIA:
Visibility creates belief. Every system needs a body count—or a jackpot winner.We show enough to be real, never enough to be hunted.
Also: if you're worried about optics, maybe don’t build lotteries on irrevocability.
ALIAS:
Touché.[Line 61 – Emergency rebalancing clause]
SOFIA:
You left this blank.
ALIAS:
I don’t believe in emergencies.The system either resists pressure or it deserves to collapse.
SOFIA:
So it’s launch-and-forget... but you want pre-emptive immunity?Fine. Let’s make every assumption hostile.
Rewriting the lottery equation to account for replay attacks, collusion incentives, and wallet sybil strategies.
I’ll even stress-test it under fake panic events.
[Line 77 – Protocol finality condition]
SOFIA:
Final comment.Your lottery protocol holds up if you trust that people aren’t morons.
I don’t.
So I rewrote the risk-smoothing model with embedded dummy rounds—non-announced, randomized cycles that invalidate bots.
Anyone who games the system only learns they failed after they win.
[End of Session]
Alias inserted no more comments.
Final Note – Alias (timestamped)
You’re already correcting for attacks I haven’t designed yet.
You’re in.
Sofia’s reply (immediate):
Knew it.
Next time, bring stronger assumptions.
%%%
Post-Exchange – Alias
(Voice memo, transcribed and immediately deleted)
She tests every assumption like it’s a trap.
Doesn’t argue for control. Just clarity.
No seduction. No vision. But she’s two steps ahead of every exploit scenario.
If governance is a debate, she’s the sniper at the back of the room.
She’ll hate that it can’t be fixed once live.
But she’ll make damn sure it won’t need to be.
She doesn’t believe in people. Perfect.
%%%
Post-Exchange – Sofia
(Draft email saved, never sent)
Subject: RE: That was fun.
Alias doesn’t ask questions. He sets traps.
The more I poked, the more he shut up. Which means I hit the right nerves.
He’s not looking for consensus. He’s looking for people who don’t need it.
No idea what he’s building, or whether I’ll hear from him again.
But if he’s serious—he’ll need me.
File: Unsent. Auto-deleted after 24 hours.
Document Name: Pegged Lottery Protocol: V.0.1 (Shared Draft)
Access Level: Restricted to Alias & S. V.
Interface: Encrypted inline model exchange
Session Status: Active
[Line 17 – Incentive distribution curve (Hope Lottery)]
SOFIA:
Your payout gradient assumes linear utility for low-income participants. That’s cute. They’re not spreadsheets, Alias. They’ll overweight tail risk.Replacing that with a sigmoid function. Behavioral bias meets bounded rationality.
ALIAS (in comment bubble):
You’re accounting for hope. But you’re penalizing predictability.That kills the trust signal.
SOFIA:
No. That kills paternalism. People don’t want a guarantee. They want non-manipulable odds. That’s the hook. You want adoption? Respect risk hunger.[Line 42 – Winner visibility mechanism]
ALIAS:
Anonymity protects the system. No hero figures. No targets.Visibility creates attack vectors.
SOFIA:
Visibility creates belief. Every system needs a body count—or a jackpot winner.We show enough to be real, never enough to be hunted.
Also: if you're worried about optics, maybe don’t build lotteries on irrevocability.
ALIAS:
Touché.[Line 61 – Emergency rebalancing clause]
SOFIA:
You left this blank.
ALIAS:
I don’t believe in emergencies.The system either resists pressure or it deserves to collapse.
SOFIA:
So it’s launch-and-forget... but you want pre-emptive immunity?Fine. Let’s make every assumption hostile.
Rewriting the lottery equation to account for replay attacks, collusion incentives, and wallet sybil strategies.
I’ll even stress-test it under fake panic events.
[Line 77 – Protocol finality condition]
SOFIA:
Final comment.Your lottery protocol holds up if you trust that people aren’t morons.
I don’t.
So I rewrote the risk-smoothing model with embedded dummy rounds—non-announced, randomized cycles that invalidate bots.
Anyone who games the system only learns they failed after they win.
[End of Session]
Alias inserted no more comments.
Final Note – Alias (timestamped)
You’re already correcting for attacks I haven’t designed yet.
You’re in.
Sofia’s reply (immediate):
Knew it.
Next time, bring stronger assumptions.
%%%
Post-Exchange – Alias
(Voice memo, transcribed and immediately deleted)
She tests every assumption like it’s a trap.
Doesn’t argue for control. Just clarity.
No seduction. No vision. But she’s two steps ahead of every exploit scenario.
If governance is a debate, she’s the sniper at the back of the room.
She’ll hate that it can’t be fixed once live.
But she’ll make damn sure it won’t need to be.
She doesn’t believe in people. Perfect.
%%%
Post-Exchange – Sofia
(Draft email saved, never sent)
Subject: RE: That was fun.
Alias doesn’t ask questions. He sets traps.
The more I poked, the more he shut up. Which means I hit the right nerves.
He’s not looking for consensus. He’s looking for people who don’t need it.
No idea what he’s building, or whether I’ll hear from him again.
But if he’s serious—he’ll need me.
File: Unsent. Auto-deleted after 24 hours.
1 comment
Sofia's genius Enjoy the read ! https://paragraph.com/@pegged/game-theory-round-zero-v1