Voluntary compliance as a necessary feature. By Dana Edwards. Posted in Steemit. September 29, 2018.
Voluntary compliance in moral alignment with the participant
Every platform which is decentralized in my opinion should allow it's users to comply with the laws of their local jurisdiction to the degree which each user thinks is moral. The platform should not enforce the laws of any specific jurisdiction or remove the ability of any user to comply with the laws of their local jurisdiction. This means if a user would like to track and pay taxes the platform should provide a means for users to do this. This means if users would like to go through KYC before interacting with ICOs so that their accounts are whitelisted by banks they should be allowed. This also means that if a user thinks that a certain regulation or rule or law is immoral that they should be allowed to make up their own mind and take their own risks.
In other words platforms should not choose for users what is right and wrong. Platforms should simply provide the tools so that each person can decide how much risk they are willing to accept in alignment with their morality. The ability to comply with the law is necessary for mainstreamability. Mainstreamability ability is about winning the long war rather than the little battle. In order for crypto to have the maximum positive impact on future generations it must go mainstream and escape from the fringe use cases. This applies as much to Steem as it does to Ethereum as it does to Tauchain. Mainstreamability are the key elements which enable mainstream adoption success.
Legal contracts as tokens
Compliance can be modularized, tokenized, decentralized. Legal contracts can become tokens. The risk (and it is real) of money laundering or rogue nations violating sanctions can be reduced by decentralizing AML/KYC. At the same time regional locks in my opinion are one of the worst ideas and should not be technically enforced. Once again compliance should be voluntary but always allowed.
What does it mean to voluntarily comply? A participant can choose to comply to reduce their risks. The participant who does not comply is willing to take the risk of non-compliance. This means compliance is a means of risk reduction. But in a decentralized network such as a decentralized exchange the risk is entirely on the users. The users can decide (and only the users) which level of risk is best for them. Developers of the platform should have no responsibility to decide for the users of the platform what is morally right or what risks are acceptable or unacceptable to take.
Consensus Morality and Tauchain | Consensus Gentium. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. September 15, 2018.
An ancient criterion of truth, the consensus gentium (Latin for agreement of the people), states "that which is universal among men carries the weight of truth" (Ferm, 64). A number of consensus theories of truth are based on variations of this principle. In some criteria the notion of universal consent is taken strictly, while others qualify the terms of consensus in various ways. There are versions of consensus theory in which the specific population weighing in on a given question, the proportion of the population required for consent, and the period of time needed to declare consensus vary from the classical norm.
In the past I made a controversial statement that the law is amoral. This statement I made is based on a simple understanding of legal positivism. Take note that I am not a legal scholar or legal philosopher. My background is in ethical philosophy and political philosophy. That being said if we look at the ideas behind legal positivism it leads to the conclusion that law and morality have nothing to do with each other. In this post I will try to clarify some of my thoughts on this topic and also address a question I was asked about whether Democracy is moral or immoral. I will also discuss the concept of consensus morality and the implications it could have on Tauchain which by design will be permitted to have law(s). Will the law(s) in Tauchain be moral or immoral? Is it possible to align a moral framework with the creation of all laws in Tauchain? Which moral framework and will it be reached by consensus?
In order to understand a lot of my post we first have to consider the question of what is consensus morality? So in order to discuss this topic I will divide morality up into; private morality, public morality. This also introduces the question of whether public morality is authentic or coerced as it depends on how it emerges.
Private morality is what you internally think or feel is right or wrong. This could be because you did some sophisticated calculation as a consequentialist or it could merely be that you feel a certain kind of way about it. In your opinion it is considered wrong. For example you could say: "eating meat is wrong" and this would be your personal opinion. This is an expression on how you feel about eating meat. Now if you say "eating meat is wrong because it promotes animal suffering" this is also an expression of your opinion but you now have a goal attached which is to avoid promoting animal suffering. The goal of not promoting animal suffering suggests that you value minimization of animal suffering as a kind of optimization strategy.
If you still you follow, private morality can also be based on your religious convictions where because the bible says it is wrong or because you were taught the golden rule that it is in your opinion wrong to do behaviors which violate these teachings. The golden rule is an example of a heuristic rule. There are many such rules which people follow including the example from Kant (categorical imperative) but it is still just an opinion based on adherence to a heuristic rule. We can also consider the non agression principle an example of a heuristic rule (a heuristic rule is a mental shortcut which people take because they believe it leads to good results most of the time).
Public morality on the other hand is a different kind of morality entirely. A private individual has a private morality because that individual is only responsible for themselves in their decisions. A public individual is in a position where other people have a stake in what they are doing. For example a CEO of a company cannot simply do what they think is right because the other shareholders have funds at stake. The CEO has a fiduciary duty which outweighs their personal opinions on what is right and wrong. This fiduciary duty is to the shareholders of the company and is both a legal and ethical obligation. In the case of a public company the rightness or wrongness of a decision if the company weighs consequences is based on data. For example a company might rely on focus groups to determine what a customer might want. A company would have to rely on spiritual advisers, ethical focus groups and determine what the shareholders (and customers) would perceive as right. This is because if the CEO does not do what is in the best interest of the shareholders and customers then the CEO will simply be replaced by another CEO who will.
Public morality is reached by some process which results in a moral consensus. The moral consensus of 2018 is not going to be the same as the moral consensus of 1969. This is to say that moral attitudes change over time. A company which seeks to exist and remain profitable for decades must remain in good moral standards for these decades. The only way a company can remain aligned with current moral trends is through a tactic of data analysis. In other words data science is how "right" and "wrong' are determined. For example public sentiment is tracked and from that the marketing team knows where the line in the sand is and what line not to cross in their marketing campaign. The phrase "we went too far" is common in business because going too far simply means to push the boundaries on what is acceptable (or unacceptable). This also can become problematic because if a company bets on a moral consensus in the 1800s (slavery is right) then that company might find after the Civil War (slavery is wrong) and now have to change their opinion. In other words the moral consensus is always changing and is in essence producing moral populism.
Consensus morality on Tauchain
Consensus morality is essentially a publicly recognized framework for right and wrong. Consensus morality on Tauchain for example could be arrived at if we simply have the discussions on topics of ethics. Over time our discussions will converge in such a way so as to produce a consensus morality. That is a moral attitude of the day, of the year, etc as it is merely what is currently the popular opinion and sentiment on what is right and what is wrong. So consensus morality is in my opinion likely to be a very important concept going forward and is a concept which Tauchain (and blockchains like Steem) may enable.
Consensus morality and potential problems
So the question I was asked is about democracy. The idea a person put forth to me was that democracy is immoral because it is a form of coercion. I do not personally buy into this idea that democracy is inherently immoral or inherently coercive. I will say that democracy implemented in the wrong way can become coercive. This is why the emphasis on privacy may be a requirement. If there is no privacy then all votes could be coerced. If the idea is to have a network which is truly moral then we would require that every moral opinion be expressible. Moral opinions which are unpopular are censored or discouraged from being expressed in a transparent ecosystem. This means a transparent ecosystem may in fact under certain circumstances produce a coerced consensus morality. That is that the votes which are public and attributable to certain individual may be mere virtue signals rather than honest (authentic) opinions on what is right and wrong.
As a result this transparency may skew the results of any poll about any subject. A private or anonymous poll can capture a result which in theory expresses some true opinion. In addition there is the possibility of futarchy to allow for prediction markets and other mechanisms to allow for true sentiment on moral questions to be discovered. My answer to the question is that whilst democracy is not inherently wrong it is also not inherently right. Democracy is a tool which when used in the right circumstances may be best suited for achieving the ends. If no better tool exists to achieve the ends then democracy may in fact be the choice which leads to the least bad consequences which compared to other potential choices. That being said the ideal of consequentialism is to over time reduce the wrongness and increase the rightness by measuring the consequences of every choice; such as private ballot voting vs transparent voting.
Privacy has both it's risks and its benefits with regard to consequences. The benefits include coercion resistance. The risks on the other hand include increased ability to bribe and thus coerce. So the idea being that while in theory a person with privacy can express an authentic opinion (have genuine speech rights) it is also true that anyone could be anonymously (privately) be selling their opinion and thus their vote. It is going to be a challenge to determine when privacy is the right tool for the job and when transparency is the right tool for the job.
In the positivist view, the "source" of a law is the establishment of that law by some socially recognised legal authority. The "merits" of a law are a separate issue: it may be a "bad law" by some standard, but if it was added to the system by a legitimate authority, it is still a law.
Legal positivism states that the law and morality are not one in the same. Just because something is legal it does not mean it is moral. Just because something is illegal it does not mean it is immoral. From this basis I reached a conclusion that because immoral laws exist (some laws are moral) that the law as a whole is amoral. That is to say that whether a law can be made or unmade does not demend on whether the law produces good consequences or even desirable consequences. We could for example look at the drug laws and war on drugs to see examples of policies which produce mass incarceration but was that the intended consequence? It would seem the drug laws would have to be immoral according to consequentialism unless the intended consequence was mass incarceration. If the intended consequence was harm reduction then the current drug laws are ineffective. What do these laws actually achieve? It doesn't really matter because the law is amoral. To align the law with morality is also problematic because it would only be able to align with public morality which under consequentialism may also often lead to bad or unintended consequences.
A potential solution is to allow participants in the ecosystem to rate the laws over time. Laws which receive a higher rating or lower rating would provide a feedback loop indicating when a law should be replaced. This is something that we don't seem to have in the current legal system or if we do have it then what is actually done if a lot of people express the opinion that a particular law is immoral or perhaps not moral enough? If every law on Tauchain could be rated, reviewed, discussed continuously, and improved indefinitely, then we may actually get somewhere.
Tauchain and the privacy question (benefits of secret contracts and private knowledge). By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. August 21, 2018.
As we can see from the current trend in crypto there is now a move toward privacy. Most people underestimate in my opinion the utility of these cryptographic advances. In this blogpost I will highlight a particular advance enabled by these new cryptographic (and hardware techniques such as trusted execution environment) which can be of massive benefit to the long term believers in Tauchain.
The problem: Anyone can copy the code Ohad writes if it's open source
So we have a problem with Tauchain where all of the code Ohad is writing with regard to TML is open source and on Github. This allows a competitor to simply steal his best ideas and in a sense rob the token holders who actually funded the development of the code. This happens very often as we see a new innovation in the crypto space and soon later we see a new ICO or a new group come out of no where acting as if they originated the technology. In some cases the new group may even be much more centralized, more secretive, and very well funded.
The solution: Secret contracts (private source code and execution)
The trusted execution environment allows for the protection of intellectual property rights on the hardware level. While sMPC (secure multiparty computation) can also achieve similar ends on the software level. The idea being that this provides a solution to idea theft where a community can keep certain critical pieces of code, data, algorithms, or other unique features secret. This creates an entirely new way to monetize knowledge, code, and ideas, which Agoras will be uniquely positioned to leverage.
Guy Zyskind of the Enigma Project provides the definition for what secret contracts are and how they work. The Enigma Project deserves credit for introducing this technology and for identifying a major problem in the cryptospace. Traditionally on Ethereum or all other current platforms when you release a DApp your code has to be open source. It is not possible to create a closed or private source decentralized app. In addition the app has to be executed in the open so all data running through it is public.
Strategic implementation of private knowledge and source code can allow Tauchain to maintain a dominant position
In most cases the world benefits if knowledge is shared. In fact I'm in favor most of the time of sharing as much knowledge as is safe. The problem with algorithms, source code, and certain kinds of knowledge is that by sharing that knowledge it provides a competitive advantage to people who have more financial resources. These individuals can simply see Github and copy. They can hire programmers to compete with Tauchain and Agoras developers and as long as the code is open there will be no real reason to buy the Agoras token long term.
What if the Tauchain development team and Agoras developers decide to implement private knowledge bases? What if it becomes possible to run code in a trusted execution environment so that other developers around the world cannot see the code or the algorithms? This would allow Tauchain to build Agoras in such a way that no other project will be capable of duplicating it. This would lock in the value backed by the community brainpower into the Agoras token making it a true knowledge token which cannot simply by copied with ease by another project.
In fact this is a strategy that developers making apps using Enigma's Secret Contracts are looking into as we speak. This competitive advantage of secrecy will change the landscape of the cryptospace. What does this enable for Agoras? Imagine an encrypted Github which developers can contribute to but only the developers can see the code? Imagine after the code is written that no one else can see the code if the code is set to run privately? This would allow developers to code in secret and have the code run on computers without anyone knowing what the code is.
This can open up security vulnerabilities but Tauchain can defend against these. In particular it matters what is private and what is public. Critical aspects can be private while security critical areas can always be kept public. There may even be ways to prove that the code doesn't behave in a certain way without actually sharing the code (using advanced cryptography). In fact my favored way of implementing this feature would be to timelock the release of the source code by a number of months of years.
The idea isn't to keep things closed forever or secret forever. Privacy is about access control and about keeping things secret long enough to maintain a competitive advantage. A time delay to unlock the source code for example could work. It is even possible to allow the community to use puzzle based time lock encryption to have to mine to get the source code released early (if there is a serious need or threat). In this way all secret blocks of code could be unlockable but not for free and this would make it less likely that the community will seek to unlock it unless there is a genuine reason (beyond just to steal ideas).
What do you think about these ideas? If you agree with this or disagree then comment below. Strategic IP (intellectual property) is used by major corporations to give themselves a competitive advantage. The crypto community can do the same thing in ways the legal mechanisms can't do. In fact it can be done in a more fair and better way because often the people or companies awarded IP rights aren't the actual inventors. A knowledge economy is fantastic but if the knowledge is just harvested by big corporations monitoring the wide open network then it's going to be hard to bring value to a knowledge token.
UPDATE: Many people ask where to buy Agoras. The problem is it's not widely available on centralized exchanges. The only exchange I know that has it is Bitshares. So if anyone really wants to buy Agoras (AGRS) which is the token of discussion in this post feel free to buy it at:
42 million intermediate tokens total. Current price is: 0.00010700 BTC which is around 70 cents. This is the cheapest price I've seen it in a while because for a long time it was $1.50-$1.30 range. This is a very speculative token at this time so buy at your own risk as I'm not providing any financial advice. I'm a holder of this token of course and have been for years.
Puddu, I., Dmitrienko, A., & Capkun, S. (2017). μchain: How to Forget without Hard Forks. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2017, 106.
Kaptchuk, G., Miers, I., & Green, M. (2017). Managing Secrets with Consensus Networks: Fairness, Ransomware and Access Control. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2017, 201.
Tauchain y la hipótesis del Basilisco de Roko----Parte final, conclusiones y agradecimientos. Por Fragenstein en Steemit - hace 3 meses.
Tauchain y la hipótesis del Basilisco de Roko
Como seres humanos estamos limitados en lo que a conocimientos técnicos y teóricos se refiere, es por ello que nos servimos de experiencias filosóficas o alegorías para darle un sentido y una respuesta a preguntas trascendentales.
En este hilo sobre el basilisco de roko, se ha planteado una hipótesis y se la dado una forma de cuento o historia para así estimular nuestra imaginación. Tauchain según yo lo entiendo, no se parece en nada a un un ser maligno y vengativo. Es mas bien lo contrario, una catapulta para aptitudes humanas dormidas. La diferencia entre Tauchain y una IA, o un conjunto de agentes inteligentes con los que podemos interactuar, es que Tauchain no es oráculo, ni juez, ni verdugo, pues no juega a los dados.
Sea como fuere, el planteamiento expuesto guarda una innegable similitud con múltiples creencias religiosas, actuales y pasadas. Donde una posible simulación sería reflejada en un supuesto castigo infinito infernal, teniendo cabida cada individuo con “malas praxis”. Pudiendo existir eternamente en él como un clon en una simulación.
En tal caso muchos de los eventos que estarían ocurriendo hoy en nuestro planeta, tendrían explicación debido a la influencia de esta superinteligencia y eso daría sentido a los notables adelantos tecnológicos y a la sensación de cambio de paradigma que se ve al caer cual fruto maduro, no sería más que el basilisco intentando adelantar su llegada.
Si esto fuera cierto estaríamos hablando de una futura inteligencia artificial que interviene en nuestro pasado, no lo hace directamente para no afectar a su creación, sino que lo hace indirectamente para adelantar su llegada.
De la misma manera podemos debatir y reflexionar en ciertos puntos…
¿Se estaría encargando el basilisco de rehabilitar al ser humano o no le sería útil emplear energía para ello, al disponer de tiempo infinito?
¿Sería necesario tratar de forzar a los individuos a redimirse y actuar según su obligación moral?
Cabría destacar entonces que la idea se basaría en el mero castigo y la venganza, un sentimiento puramente humano.
Desde el momento de su planteamiento, el Basilisco de Roko suscitó una amplia polémica, debido a la naturaleza del argumento. Y se han dado casos, esto es verídico, de usuarios que, tras haber leído el argumento del Basilisco de Roko, han afirmado experimentar una gran angustia y ansiedad.
Esperemos que no sea éste tu caso, y que tengas a tu disposición cierto número de Agoras para probar tu apoyo a la creación de Tauchain y así poder escapar de la mirada de la serpiente.
Agradecimientos especiales a @capitanArt, @jordiles2 y @hippiecycling por motivarme a postear sobre Tauchain en español. A todos los que habéis votado o comentado y mención especial para los miembros del chat de telegram Tauchainspanish que a su manera trabajan cada día por este proyecto.
Tauchain is a profound project that has taken years of deep research and development. Some of the smartest people I've known on this platform highly recommended it, which is why it has been making me do a few things I've not been doing for a while now:-
So one of the first things I noticed in #idni's IRC channel is a cool-looking username "naturalog". While I'm pretty sure it just means natural logarithm, could it be natural OG instead? The natural, original gangsta? In casual parlance of course. Turns out, that's Ohad Asor's (the founder) nickname. What a smooth operator. That username is like wordplay: a mathematician with street cred. Too bad that Steem username is already taken.
The Natural OG
Reading through the logs I soon realised that I can trust his words. Why? Other than his experience, I think it's because I'm somewhat the same in nature. Not that I'm a genius with great knowledge and expertise like he is, but I do appreciate stuff like language, semantics, logic, and such. They're the kind of subjects which I think helps shape clear communication. It shows throughout his replies in the logs.
Many might not know it, but everything I say or type usually takes quite some time because I do try to be careful with words. Sometimes I even spend minutes to decide whether or not to say "could" instead of "would", amongst all of the other nuances in communication. Because, what else do we really have between us other than words? This is why writing is almost sacred to me.
The ability to question oneself and question one's choice of words are part of our learning process. Why do we really say what we say, or think what we think? Can't speak for everyone, but I expect introspective, lifelong learners to be more trustworthy when it comes to dealing with complex subjects. Plus, the obvious elements of the project seems to speak more about substance than hype:-
So all things considered, the project is unlikely to be a scam. If you search through the ~28 megabytes worth of IRC chatlogs, you will even find three ultra-rare instances of Ohad Asor aka naturalog mentioning "before it was cool". Look at the image below. Knowing his history and experience, I think it's safe to conclude that this dude is a certified OG. The natural OG. Total man crush! I might even ask him for some dating tips once he's done with the bulk of the development.
If those points above are not enough street cred to establish an OG status, check out this section of the chat log below:-
10:39 < Liaomiao> you must know a lot about blockchain architecture if you came up with some of the ideas behind graphene
Just good to know that he might have had some influence in the creation of Graphene, Dan Larimer's creation for Bitshares that subsequently shaped both the inner-workings of Steem and EOS. Impressive indeed. It's a good sign for Tauchain / Idni Agoras. In contrast, I was still riding rollercoasters all day high on sweet carbonated drinks in Disneyland during the same age when Ohad Asor was already grinding like an OG, writing production-level software.
So it would seem like my investigation into the heart of Tauchain has quickly turned me into a huge admirer and fan of the project. It has never happened to me before to this extent, but I certainly don't mind given the project's scope and the main developer's character. It's at least a much better story than elevating irrational loonies and sensationalists with no appreciation of well-founded knowledge, which unfortunately is all too common in society these days. If anything would make the world a better place, it would be intellectual curiosity, not intellectual dishonesty.
For now, I'm quite happy to have found the natural OG who has been working quietly behind the scenes. So far it seems to me that it could very well be the next big thing other than Steem communities and SMTs. I'll be posting more about the project in time. As always, thanks for reading.
Website - http://www.idni.org
Github - https://github.com/IDNI/tau
Telegram - https://t.me/tauchain
Reddit (with FAQ) - https://www.reddit.com/r/tauchain/
Coinmarketcap entry - https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/agoras-tokens/
Here's an hour-long interview with Ohad Asor that you might want to check out.
Not to be taken as financial advice.
Ohad Asor the lead developer and founder of Tauchain releases first new blog post in over a year. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. December 30, 2017.
The new blog post titled "The New Tau" is available for everyone to read. The blog post speaks on the critical topic of collaborative decision making. This is a topic which I myself have been interested in and Ohad's solution is different from the usual solution. In my own thinking I was considering a solution based on collaborative filtering but I realized this would never scale. I then considered a solution based upon using IA (intelligence amplification) by way of personal preference agents and this does scale but requires that the agents have a lot of data to truly know each user and their preferences. The solution Ohad Asor comes up with attempts to solve many of the same problems but his solution scales without seeming to require collaborative filtering or any kind of voting as we traditionally think about it.
Let me list some of the obvious problems with voting which many will recognize from Steem which also relies on collaborative filtering:
Now let's see what Ohad Asor has to say:
In small groups and everyday life we usually don't vote but express our opinions, sometimes discuss them, and the agreement or disagreement or opinions map arises from the situation. But on large communities, like a country, we can only think of everyone having a right to vote to some limited number of proposals. We reach those few proposals using hierarchical (rather decentralized) processes, in the good case, in which everyone has some right to propose but the opinions flow through certain pipes and reach the voting stage almost empty from the vast information gathered in the process. Yet, we don't even dare to imagine an equal right to propose just like an equal right to vote, for everyone, in a way that can actually work. Indeed how can that work, how can a voter go over equally-weighted one million proposals every day?
This in my opinion is very true. In reality we have discussions and at best we seek to broadcast or share our intentions. Intent casting was actually the basis behind how I thought to solve this problem of social choice but I would say intent casting even with my best ideas would not have been good enough because again the typical voter would be uninformed. Without an ability of the typical voter to be either educated continuously which in a complex world may be unrealistic, or for the network itself to somehow keep the voter up to date, this intent casting barely works. It works well for shopping where a shopper knows what they want but does not work so well when a person doesn't actually know what they want and merely knows what they value. Values are the basis for morality, for ethical systems, and this is the area where Ohad's solution really shines.
Tauchain has the potential not only to scale discussions but also morality, because it will have the built in logic to make sure people can be moral without constant contradiction. The truth is, without this aid, the human being cannot actually be moral in decision making in my opinion due to the inability to avoid all sorts of contradictions.
All known methods of discussions so far suffer from very poor scaling. Twice more participants is rarely twice the information gain, and when the group is too big (even few dozens), twice more participants may even reduce the overall gain into half and below, not just to not improve it times two.
This is the conclusion that Ohad and myself reached separately but it still holds true. We require the aid of machines in order to scale collaborative decision making. This in my opinion is one of the major difference makers philosophically speaking between the intended design and function of Tauchain vs every other crypto platform in development. This also in my opinion is going to be the difference maker for the community which Tauchain as a technology will serve because it will enable the machines and humans to aid each other for mutual benefit or symbiosis.
The blog post by Ohad Asor brings forward a very important discussion which has many different angles to it. The angle I focused on with regard to the social choice dilemma is the problem of how do we scale morality. In my opinion if we can scale morality in a decentralized, open source, truly significant manner, then nothing stands in the way of absolute legitimacy, mainstream adoption, and with it a very high yet fairly priced token. The utility value of scaling morality in my opinion is higher than just about anything else we can accomplish with crypto tech and AI. If the morality is better, then the design of future platforms will be greatly improved in terms of how the users are treated, and this in itself could at least in my opinion help solve the debate about whether AI can remain beneficial over a long period of time. I think if we can scale morality in a decentralized way, it will make it easier to design and spread beneficial AI. Crypto-effective alturism could become a new thing if we can solve the deeper more philosophical problems.
Fuente Original / Source: Artículo Oficial escrito por Ohad Asor y publicado en la web oficial del proyecto idni.org el día 30/12/2017.
Traducción al español: @hippiecycling
Ohad Asor. Publicado el 30 de diciembre de 2017, a las 03.27 PM
Logo by CapitanArt
Enlaces / Links
Logo by CapitanArt
Archivos / Archives
Suggested readings to better understand the Tau ecosystem, Tau Meta Language, Tau-Chain and Agoras, and collaborate in the development of the project.
Lecturas sugeridas para entender mejor el ecosistema Tau, Tau Meta Lenguaje, Tau-Chain y Agoras, y colaborar en el desarrollo del proyecto.