Noether as a dynamically adjusting, permissionless governance incentivization system

I love the way you’ve framed this! Maximizing activity vs. relevance is indeed a critical distinction.

Your perspective resonates with me. Focusing on relevance seems to be a more sustainable approach, as it could organically lead to genuine activity in the long run.

To draw an analogy, I like to consider how involvement in the governance of a major open-source software project like Ubuntu can have profound economic implications. For entities that rely on Ubuntu, influencing its development can directly affect their operational effectiveness.

Instead of merely driving up the volume of interactions, the emphasis is on ensuring that the software remains relevant. By being part of the decision-making process, stakeholders not only influence the technological direction but also play a role in its ethical and innovative growth. Similarly, for Cartesi, decisions that enhance the relevance of dapps might be more beneficial in the longer term than those solely aiming to boost activity.

This discussion is related to the “macroeconomy” paper that @pedroargento wrote a while ago! There is a world that mixes both solutions. Actually, @erick.demoura was a visionary and had suggested that I linked that paper in the main proposal, but I decided against it cause I thought they were not that related. But here it goes, for the interested: