A privacy and governance mechanism for feedback under asymmetry of power.
A feedback app that:
- Enables User A (Ua) to:
- define a set of users: (eg. 40 users U1...U40)
- give them tokens of identification
- establish/accept some qualities and quantities/ranges that Ua needs feedback on by continous vote (could be pre-set for certain domains (like in Academia))
- read and answer to the (additional) freeform feedback:
- first: as 1-on-1 chats
- second: as a limited forum: U1..40+a
- third: in a public stage if all participants are in agreement to make this public
- Enables Users 1 - 40 (U1..40) to:
- choose a temporary identity using the token
- choose another identity using the same token
- this identity is private (not known to any other user)
- using this identity, the user Ux can:
- vote on the qualities and ranges proposed
- leave private feedback
- vote for limited disclosure for his feedback
- participate in the limited forum: continue discussion of his feedback, post, reply to other feedbacks
- vote for discussion categorizations
- vote for disclosure for a discussion he was a party to
- disclose his true identity and continue the discussion in public
- At an appointed term (by cron):
- the continous vote is concluded
- the forums are concluded and
- voting commences to make a selection of forums/votes public (or not)
PrivacySafe has apps for:
- sending email with protected identity
- chatting with protected identity
- notarization on Kayros
Mythos has contracts for:
- continous voting
- notarization on Kayros
Nomen implements identity transfer:
- from PrivacySafe
- to any Social Media: X.com
- from one course to the next
The Professor or Manager who will have the social contract with the students that he will not vote (or he will have his vote weighted equally to his students') will have a chance to acquire professional prestige. The 1-on-1 chats may happen only during office hours to make sure that the time/effort is not abused. The honor of the entire power role/institution may be elevated by using privacy.
Usecases fit best the situation where Ua has power over U1-40:
- Academia: Ua is a Professor and U1-40 are students.
- Housing or dorm governance: tenants/residents giving structured feedback to a landlord, RA, or housing office.
- Industry: Ua is a supervisor/manager, and U1-40 are employees under him.
- Research labs: PI or lab head over PhD students, postdocs, and research assistants.
- Justice trials with jurors: Ua is the judge, U1-40 are the jurors (requires unanimity at the final tally).
- Sports teams: coach over players, especially academy, college, or youth systems.
- Nonprofits and volunteer corps: coordinator over volunteers where retaliation risk is real.
- Religious institutions: clergy or seminary leadership over seminarians or community workers.
- Political party meetings: leaders over the other party members.
- control over cohort formation: Ua defines the participant set and issues the tokens.
- a structured feedback process, not just raw messages: participants continuously vote on the feedback criteria, and the app finalizes an active template from those votes.
- a right of reply: feedback can be answered in 1:1 chat, then potentially in a limited forum, and only later in a public stage.
- closure: at the appointed term, voting and forums end, so the process cannot stay indefinitely fluid.
- unilateral control over disclosure. Public release depends on participant voting and, for identity revelation, participant consent.
- temporary private identity inside the system.
- participation in shaping the evaluation criteria, not just answering them.
- a graduated disclosure ladder: private feedback first, then optional limited disclosure, then optional public stage.
- that private information remains private until all parties agree to disclosure; this is the clearest normative guarantee.
- that even if material becomes public, identity disclosure remains optional; the public stage can remain pseudonymous unless Ux approves identity transfer.
Ux is not guaranteed freedom from social pressure outside the system. Privacy reduces retaliation risk, but it does not define enforcement against out-of-band coercion.
- that only selected discussions and vote outcomes become public, not the entire private corpus.
- a mechanism intended to improve feedback quality in power-imbalanced settings by shielding participants early and encouraging recognition later.
- better legitimacy of authority: “honor,” “prestige,” and elevation of the Ua's institution when privacy is used well.
- cryptographic verifiability of the information that will be disclosed.
(According to https://virtues.provable.dev/.)
Measurability by feedback is essential to Academia and Industry. It is the first step to achieve Industriousness and Abundance. However, it may be impeded by incorrect/byased application of Governance and Justice/Fairness. In order to isolate one virtue from the diminishing effects of other virtues, this system uses temporary privacy. Since privacy is not a virtue when it is eternal, this system guarantees that the private info remains private until all parties agree to disclosure, but encourages disclosure as the final conclusion for increasing Recognition https://virtues.provable.dev/docs/harmony.
flowchart TD
Ua[Ua / authority]
Participants[U1..U40 / participants]
App[feedbacd]
IdP[PrivacySafe + nomen]
Scheduler[Cron / appointed term]
Public[Public stage]
Ua -->|defines roster and proposes qualities, prompts, ranges| App
Ua -->|issues tokens| Participants
Participants -->|redeem token, choose temporary identity| App
Participants -->|continuously vote on proposed qualities and ranges| App
App -->|provisions pseudonymous identity| IdP
Participants -->|leave feedback, vote, discuss| App
App -->|finalizes active template from participant votes| Ua
Scheduler -->|concludes continuous vote and closes forums| App
Scheduler -->|starts publication-selection voting phase| App
Ua -->|reads and replies| App
Participants -->|vote on which forums and outcomes become public| App
App -->|publishes only selected discussions and votes| Public
IdP -->|maps temporary identity to public identity on consent| Public
flowchart TD
A[Ua issues token] --> B[Ux redeems token]
B --> C[Ux chooses temporary private identity]
C --> D[Ux reviews proposed qualities and ranges]
D --> E[Participants continuously vote on qualities and ranges]
E --> F[App finalizes active feedback template]
F --> G[Ux leaves private feedback]
G --> H[Ua and Ux discuss in 1:1 chat]
H --> I{Vote for limited disclosure?}
I -->|No| H
I -->|Yes| J[Feedback enters limited forum]
J --> K[Participants post, reply, and vote on categorization]
K --> L[Appointed term reached by cron]
L --> M[Continuous template vote concludes]
L --> N[Forums conclude and discussion freezes]
N --> O[Publication-selection voting begins]
O --> P{Selected for public release?}
P -->|No| Q[Remain private or limited only]
P -->|Yes| R[Discussion and selected votes move to public stage]
R --> S{Ux discloses real identity?}
S -->|No| T[Remain publicly pseudonymous]
S -->|Yes| U[Continue discussion under public identity]
sequenceDiagram
participant Ua as Ua
participant Ux as Participant Ux
participant App as feedbacd
participant IdP as PrivacySafe / nomen
participant Cron as Cron
participant Pub as Public stage
Ua->>Ux: Deliver token
Ux->>App: Redeem token
App->>IdP: Create temporary identity
IdP-->>Ux: Temporary pseudonymous handle
Ua->>App: Propose qualities and ranges
App-->>Ux: Show proposed feedback template
Ux->>App: Vote on qualities and ranges
App-->>Ua: Aggregate participant votes
Ua->>App: Accept finalized template
Ux->>App: Submit private feedback under pseudonym
App-->>Ua: Show feedback without revealing real identity
Ux->>App: Vote for broader disclosure
Ux->>App: Participate in limited forum and categorization votes
Cron->>App: Appointed term reached
App-->>Ux: Continuous vote concluded and forums closed
App-->>Ua: Freeze discussions and open publication-selection vote
Ux->>App: Vote on which forums and votes become public
App->>Ux: Request consent before public stage for selected items
Ux->>IdP: Approve identity transfer
IdP-->>App: Verified public identity link
App->>Pub: Publish selected discussion and selected vote outcomes
Ux->>Pub: Continue as disclosed public identity
stateDiagram-v2
[*] --> ProposedTemplate
ProposedTemplate --> TemplateVoting: Ua publishes draft criteria
TemplateVoting --> ActiveTemplate: continuous voting defines active template
ActiveTemplate --> TemplateVoting: criteria continue evolving before cutoff
ActiveTemplate --> PrivateFeedback: participant starts feedback
PrivateFeedback --> OneToOneDiscussion: Ua replies
OneToOneDiscussion --> PrivateFeedback: revised feedback
OneToOneDiscussion --> LimitedForumCandidate: vote for limited disclosure
LimitedForumCandidate --> OneToOneDiscussion: disclosure rejected
LimitedForumCandidate --> LimitedForum: disclosure approved
LimitedForum --> CategorizedDiscussion: category votes converge
CategorizedDiscussion --> LimitedForum: recategorize
LimitedForum --> ForumClosed: appointed term reached
CategorizedDiscussion --> ForumClosed: appointed term reached
TemplateVoting --> VotingClosed: appointed term reached
ActiveTemplate --> VotingClosed: appointed term reached
ForumClosed --> PublicationSelection: publication-selection voting begins
VotingClosed --> PublicationSelection: selected vote outcomes become eligible
PublicationSelection --> ForumClosed: not selected
PublicationSelection --> PublicPseudonymous: selected for public stage
PublicPseudonymous --> PublicDisclosed: author reveals true identity
PublicPseudonymous --> [*]
PublicDisclosed --> [*]