Chapter 7 of 12 · 2 min read
Governance and Value Flows
How authority, evidence, disputes, and future value mechanisms should be separated.
Word Wallet Web · v0.2 · Moses Sam Paul
Governance and Value Flows
Registration is an institutional act
Activating an expression changes what clients can resolve and invoke. It is therefore a governance decision, not a database convenience. Review must establish who is accountable for the definition, handler, consent language, retention rules, and incident response.
Layers of authority
Governance should distinguish:
- Spec governance: grammar, schemas, protocol versions, and interoperability;
- registry governance: admission, status, version activation, suspension, and archival;
- handler governance: model or rule changes, validation, monitoring, and incidents;
- community governance: interpretation, disputed claims, and appropriate use;
- value-flow governance: any future recognition or distribution mechanism.
No single repository should silently control all five layers.
Disputes and corrections
A credible process needs reasons, evidence, response windows, and an appeal route. Emergency suspension may precede a full hearing when participant safety or system integrity is at risk, but the suspension itself should be recorded. Corrections should preserve lineage rather than rewrite history invisibly.
Before value flows
Phase 1 Word Wallets are nonfinancial. A future experiment must specify the source of value, eligible recipients, allocation rule, costs, taxes, jurisdiction, dispute process, and termination conditions. It must also test whether incentives distort language or participation.
Value need not mean money. A governed flow may concern attribution, access, learning opportunities, decision rights, or public recognition. Treating all value as price would reproduce the reduction this project is trying to avoid.
Constitutional constraints
Some rules should be hard to override: private identity facets are not saleable inventory; consent cannot be inferred from participation; revocation must have effect; and scores cannot determine a person's intrinsic worth. These constraints need technical enforcement and institutional accountability.