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.