§13. SoV Evaluation Framework

Jason St George. "§13. SoV Evaluation Framework" in Next‑Gen Store of Value: Privacy, Proofs, Compute. Version v1.0. /v/1.0/read/part-ii/13-sov-evaluation-framework/

§13. SoV evaluation framework (monetary lens)

Later, Part V will present an operator/investor checklist that spans the whole stack. Here we sketch the monetary lens: how to evaluate whether a particular triad‑based instrument is a credible store of value.

For any candidate instrument (X) (a Work Credit type, a ZK Money basket, an AI Money token), ask:

1. What triad workloads back it?

   • Exactly which Privacy, Proof, and Compute flows does (X) reference?
   • Are those workloads canonical and well‑specified?

2. How is issuance tied to work?

   • Is issuance formulaic and transparent (e.g., one credit per verified unit of W)?
   • Can governance mint outside of those rules? Under what constraints?

3. Can anyone verify the backing?

   • Are VerifyPrice and workload telemetry public?
   • Can a third party recompute or sample the proofs/settlements that justify supply?

4. How does it behave under repression?

   • If real yields are −300 bps for 3 years, what happens to demand for (X)?
   • If on‑/off‑ramps are throttled, can (X) still be acquired, held, and spent?

5. Is privacy lawful by design?

   • Are there clean paths for voluntary disclosure that do not reintroduce custody or KYC chokepoints at the protocol level?
   • Are the receipts (PIDL) expressive enough for auditors?

6. What is the duration profile?

   • Does (X) promise fixed nominal coupons (bond‑like) or variable participation in fee flows and scarcity premia (equity/commodity‑like)?
   • Can a sovereign push its real return negative by fiat?

7. Who can be locked out?

   • Is access to (X) gated by one jurisdiction, cloud, or app store?
   • Do Layer‑0/1/2 assumptions (hardware, comms, distribution) create hidden chokepoints?

A triad‑based instrument that scores well on these questions behaves like a next‑generation SoV:

• It is backed by verifiable work, not by decree.
• Its value is rooted in capacities that a digital civilization must keep buying: privacy, proofs, and compute.
• It is measurable under stress via telemetry, not defended by rhetoric.

13.1 Comparison: Traditional Hard Assets vs. the Triad

For context, it is useful to compare how gold and silver—the canonical “old-world” stores of value—score against the same framework:

Gold and silver excel on Lindy (millennia of history), simplicity (no software, no network), and zero counterparty risk in physical form. They remain rational holdings during the transition window while the triad stack matures. However, once VerifyPrice, VerifyReach, and VerifySettle are operational and healthy, the triad offers superior properties for a dense digital civilization: instant verification, programmability, censorship-resistant settlement, and yield tied to structural demand rather than lending risk.

The thesis does not claim gold is obsolete. It claims that for the specific failure modes of the 21st century—financial repression under surveillance, synthetic media, AI-saturated workflows—the triad is better suited to the task. The bridge is still load-bearing; the destination is under construction.

The rest of the thesis will shift back to the stack angle (Layers 0–6) and the telemetry angle (VerifyPrice/Reach/Settle, decentralization metrics, governance). But the monetary picture stays in the background: every design choice is judged by how well it supports the triad as a monetary base and how well Work Credits and derived instruments can function as Private Money and AI Money when the world turns adversarial.

Tip: hover a heading to reveal its permalink symbol for copying.