Logo Hoollow
Protocol Fragility // Active Research

Open
Questions.

The protocol is a living experiment. We have identified structural paradoxes that require Collective Intelligence to solve.

High Priority
Structural Logic // 01

The Subjectivity Paradox

How do we mathematically verify the "quality" of design or creative writing without centralizing authority? Code has unit tests; aesthetics only have consensus. We are currently modeling **Recursive Peer-Weighting**—a system where a designer's vote strength is a function of their historical "Visual Sync" accuracy.

Status: Modeling Phase
HIP-102
Mid Priority
Cross-Chain // 02

Identity Collision & Latency

Preventing "Double-Syncing" across Layer 2 environments remains a challenge. If a UID initiates a vote on Base while bridging XP to Mainnet, the protocol risks an **XP Ghosting** event. We need a more resilient "Lock-and-Verify" primitive for the UID layer.

Low Priority
Human Dynamics // 03

Inactivity Penalty Thresholds

Is a 21-day decay window too aggressive for deep-focus "monk mode" cycles? We are gathering data on average developer sprint lengths vs. creative incubation periods. The goal is a **Dynamic Entropy Function** that scales decay based on your specific contribution type.

Have a hypothesis?

Draft a **Hoollow Improvement Proposal (HIP)**. Accepted solutions that pass the Collective's audit are granted a massive Impact XP distribution.

← Back to FAQ
System Status: 84% Documented