| paper | d4-conf-atal-2022-0198 |
| authors | — |
| venue | ? |
| filed under | unclassified |
| judged by | gpt-6-luna / xhigh (triple__luna__xhigh__c6r1) |
| judge confidence | high |
| authors would recognise it | no |
The supermajority statement is an unnumbered summary of cited work, and the paper gives no named algorithm, complexity bound, hardness result, or computational formulation. A high-multiplicity DAO voting regime may be sensible, but there is no computational result in this paper to mirror.
fails bit a — no named computational result to mirror
The paper presents a vision, architecture, and research roadmap; its discussion of supermajority voting summarizes cited results rather than establishing a computational result of its own.
I can’t make a qualifying case for a continuous mirror from this paper’s results: it contains no numbered Theorem, Lemma, Corollary, or Proposition asserting a computational complexity result. The paper defines theorem-like environments but does not use them for results.
The closest candidate is Section 3’s summary that supermajority rules can satisfy sybil safety and liveness when the sybil fraction is below \(1/3\). But the paper attributes that claim to Shahaf et al. and Meir et al.; it is not a numbered result proved here, and it concerns voting-rule properties rather than computational complexity. Turning it into a complexity mirror would require inventing a new anchor.
There is no continuous-mirror anchor in the appended case to defeat: it names none. Its central observation is right. The paper states no computational complexity result for a problem it defines. Its algorithmic content is a roadmap of challenges, plus references to results elsewhere; it does not give ChoCo a discrete theorem whose computational question can be mirrored.
The closest candidate is sybil-resilient voting. A large DAO with many members casting a few recurring ballot types is a sensible high-multiplicity setting. One could represent ballot types and genuine or sybil status by masses, then ask how to choose a voting rule that meets safety and liveness constraints. But that would be a newly formalized mechanism-design or optimization problem. The paper only summarizes cited work showing that supermajority rules can meet those properties below a sybil-fraction threshold; it neither proves that result nor gives a computational problem or algorithmic classification to continuize. The paper’s challenge to evaluate lower bounds on the supermajority degree does not supply that missing formal problem.
The other tempting passages fare no better as anchors. Constitutional governance is described through an axiomatization and algorithmic methods in a cited work, not results established here. Community formation and protocol design are research agendas involving trust graphs, identities, and system dynamics, not stated computational results of this paper. A continuous model might be worthwhile research adjacent to any of those topics, but calling it a mirror of this paper would stretch “mirror” until it means “inspired by.”
So the negative case is strong as a verdict on this paper, though not as a universal claim that no continuous-population research could arise from its subject matter. The plausible voting scenario shows that the population regime itself is sensible. What is missing is a computational result in this paper to mirror.
The adversarial triple: the proponent anchors on up to three named results; the opponent sees that case and must defeat every anchor; the judge decides which case convinced it. These are the pipeline’s own outputs, generated by tools/triple_run.py — no human edited them. The paper’s own text is not reproduced here beyond the quoted statement above.