§8. Proofs as Truth Money

Jason St George. "§8. Proofs as Truth Money" in Next‑Gen Store of Value: Privacy, Proofs, Compute. Version v1.0. /v/1.0/read/part-ii/8-proofs-as-truth-money/

§8. Proofs as Truth Money

If Privacy is the hull, Proofs are the receipts.

In a world of synthetic media, platform moderation, and “liar’s dividend,” the scarce thing is no longer content but trustworthy provenance and computation history. Proofs are the mechanism layer that answers, cheaply and publicly:

“Did this actually come from where it claims, and did the computation actually run as stated?”

Clarification: Proofs vs. Proof-Backed Instruments

Proofs themselves are infinitely replicable outputs once generated. A ZK proof can be copied and verified anywhere. On its own, a proof is not a scarce bearer asset—it is an attestation.

What is scarce is:

• The ability to produce valid proofs at scale (requires compute, hardware, energy).
• Rights embedded in instruments that reference proofs (Work Credits, staking positions, capacity claims).

So we distinguish three roles proofs play in the monetary stack:

1. Proofs as a commodity market: Standardized attestations priced by VerifyPrice. You buy proofs the way you buy bandwidth—as a priced input to operations.

2. Proofs as collateral enablers: Proofs make other contracts collateralizable. An inference SLA backed by proofs of correct execution can be used as collateral because the proof makes default detectable. Proofs enable trust-minimized derivatives.

3. Proof-backed instruments: The “money-like” object is not “a proof” but an instrument whose integrity is enforced by proofs—e.g., Work Credits tied to verified proof workloads, or provenance insurance contracts backed by attestation receipts.

“Truth Money” in this thesis refers primarily to proof-backed instruments and claims on proof capacity, not to proofs themselves.

From a monetary perspective, two features matter:

1. Proofs travel: A PIDL receipt can be moved across systems, archived, or collateralized. It outlives any single platform’s UX, TOS, or reputation.

2. Proofs can be priced and standardized: Once you know the VerifyPrice of a workload (p50/p95 time and cost to check), you can treat “valid proof of workload W” as a commodity unit.

This gives rise to Truth Money:

• Media platforms, insurers, and courts demand proofs of origin, editing history, and custody.
• AI services demand proofs that a model of a given hash ran on given inputs with given bounds.
• Enterprises demand proofs that compliance computations, audits, and controls actually ran.

Initially, proofs are purchased as opex (“we pay per proof”). Over time, markets will create claims on future proof capacity:

• Reservations or futures on proof‑-of‑provenance capacity for a media network.
• Proof pool shares that entitle holders to a portion of fees from high‑value workloads (e.g., AML, KYC, regulated analytics).
• Work Credits minted against proof workloads that meet certain VerifyPrice and SLO thresholds.

These instruments function as Truth Money:

“Rights to future, standardized, verifiable attestations about data and computation.”

They carry SoV properties because:

• They’re demand‑driven. As AI increases the cost of trusting unproven content and computation, demand for proofs rises.

• They’re verifiable. A proof either verifies under a public verifier or it doesn’t; there’s no “trust our platform” middle state.

• They’re non‑substitutable. A receipt for “this video existed with hash H at time T with camera C” is not fungible with another; the capacity to emit such receipts reliably is fungible and can be commoditized.

From the triad perspective:

• Privacy protects who is involved.
• Proofs protect what actually happened.
• Compute powers how we arrive at outputs.

Truth Money is what you hold when you believe the long run belongs to systems where verification, not vibe, mediates trust.

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