BABZI
Governance · Token design · Agent economies
Governance, tokens, and incentives are parts of one system. I stress test how that system behaves under pressure, especially when agents enter economies built for humans, or when real constraints expose the assumptions in the deck.
Who can act, who is pretended to be the same actor, and who is invisible in the model.
What the token, points, or reputation actually pay for, and what behaviour that buys when it works.
Where vaults, points, and governance pull apart, and what breaks under stress or thin infrastructure.
Two deep cuts
Most digital voting tools do not fail in theory. They fail in environments like mine. Invited by Vocdoni to test three surfaces on ordinary Android 4G: one production path, two DAVINCI MVPs. Wallet friction, NFC assumptions, and silent exclusion showed up as design, not bad luck.
Progressive Sovereignty raised the next question sovereign appchains face: how nested economies unlock ownership without forcing a premature token. Two intentional paths, Builder and Sovereign, so graduation is designed, not improvised.
Oarcoin
Submitted a 32 page governance design proposal, still under review. Wrote the tokenomics and helped formalize the whitepaper so structure matches their philosophy.
PIM Protocol
Delivered a tokenomics review used to shape their incentive design. Past engagement, not an ongoing retainer.
Scoped work
A written memo on your incentive surface: actors, rewards, and failure modes. Usually five to seven days. Cash. Not full token model ownership. Clear judgment on the rules and goals of the system.
Send the mechanism and the question you want answered. If points, vaults, or governance are pulling in different directions, say so.