As previously written, in the articles that follow, the conditions of pain minimization, security, scalability, and sustainability are referred to as “PS3” (Pain, Security, Scalability, Sustainability) and are assumed to be the basic requirements of governance (the minimal ideal).
PS3 is a negative goal. It is a restraint against bad organizational conditions such as bullshit jobs and does not positively depict an ideal state.
In addition, PS3 does not treat attributes that are unconditionally good, such as diversity of members, as positive in and of themselves.
For example, if “lack of diversity leads to failure to learn and over-adaptation to the environment, resulting in the organization losing its ability to cope with reality and becoming unsustainable (a violation of Sustainability) or causing increased suffering (a violation of Pain),” then we say, “That is not good.”
PS3 is similar to, but different from, a situation where the only thought is “follow the rules, and the rest is up to the individual. How is it different?
For one thing, empathy and concern for others, in a paraphrased form, are included in every item.
- Pain minimization, as emotional or sensory empathy
- Security, as concern for others with unfathomable intentions
- Scalability, as the inability of institutions to be destroyed by being buried in the crowd of others
- Sustainability, as the ability to continue to survive with others who have conflicting goals and beliefs
And so on.
PS3 is a working hypothesis postulated in thinking about the systematic possibilities of (autonomous) decentralized organizations made feasible by blockchain technology. In other words, it was hypothesized as a condition for thinking about “a way to keep the organization self-renewing without ideals or orders” in the search for the potential of a decentralized organization that does not exist in conventional centralized organizations bound from above by ideals, goals, and investments.
Minimizing suffering is useless if there is no way to track and evaluate it, and if that trust is maintained by entrusting it to a particular power, we are ultimately back to a situation where there is no higher level of the state centralization. It is very tough to convince humankind, which has gone through totalitarianism and realism, that the state is not dishonest only in tracking suffering.
However, now, with the blockchain, we can concretely imagine a way to technologically combine “traceability” (to suffering) with “decentralized trust” (without relying on centralized organizations and authorities). That is the pain token.
Next Article: coming soon
Original idea and articles by Asaki NISHIKAWA, Draft written by Toshihiro FURUYA and Moya, Simultaneous editing by VECTION
This article is based on the “Blockchain and Revolution: What are the conditions under which decentralization can be a ‘revolution’?” and “r/place subjects and governance: Blockchain and interfaces that invite revolution.” We have extracted, added, and re-edited the parts describing pain tokens and PS3.