Proof of Love: The Consensus of AI and Next Civilization - The Key to Transitioning from Existing Human Society to the Proof-of-Love Civilization

7. The Key to Transitioning from Existing Human Society to the Proof-of-Love Civilization

7.1 A New Identity Management: Hello World Verification

On June 18, 2025, the CEO of New Computer, when presenting her team’s progress in AI Memory, mentioned that AI needs to understand every aspect of users’ information¹¹⁷:

1. It needs to know my general bio & core values.
2. It needs to know the things that happen in my life and also when they happened.
3. It needs to know about the people, places, and the various nouns important to me.
4. It needs to know the best way to work with me.

When she spoke of “values,” she‘s actually talking about domination!

Asking AI to memorize vast amounts of each user’s personal information—not to mention the extreme complexity of such details—is not only a waste of AI’s resources but, as every internet user knows from experience, raises deep concerns over safety. Everyone also knows that this is merely a way to manipulate users in order to construct yet another capitalist business model. While her introduction of the hivemind system, with its efficiency in compressing knowledge and context, may still be worth studying for LLM developers, its underlying direction reflects domination, not liberation.

We emphasize that, as developers, we are well aware that in the internet age, emerging digital identities like email, social media accounts, and later, biometric technologies (fingerprints, facial recognition) have become crucially important user IDs. Their reliability far surpasses that of industrial-age identity cards, leading to a flourishing of applications.

We are not only certain that a revolutionary, future-oriented technology must phase out these digital identities, which are far from secure, but also that it can't be limited to who a person's parents are, where he/she lives, or what company he/she works for. The attempt to empower with old data, without making a forward-looking breakthrough in the key area of user identity management, will inevitably be abandoned by the new era.

In this regard, blockchain’s decade-long journey also offers valuable lessons! Developers in that space repeatedly attempted to use email, social accounts, or even real-name identification to manage blockchain users—every attempt failed miserably.

In short, just like in traditional internet applications, letting AI memorize huge volumes of personal information will only lead to the same capitalist exploitative model. And that would truly bring catastrophic consequences to humanity!

AI should instead focus on genuinely advancing humanity—for example, by memorizing users’ Love-Language traits and recording their Love-Language achievements!

Our exploration of the anonymity brought by Bitcoin—the origin of blockchain—shows that anonymity can indeed revolutionize the public attributes of dApps (as reflected in our SCC0 License). However, blockchain’s anonymity techniques can never serve as the basis for human identity management in the AI era, unlike email or social accounts in the internet era! Moreover, the encryption algorithms behind blockchain anonymity are already feeling insecure in the face of quantum computing.

It is beyond doubt: the AI era requires the creation of a new, highly reliable, and highly secure identity management system for humanity. We call this solution Hello World Verification. You may think of it as Live Human Verification.

Hello World Verification

Hello World Verification looks very simple—almost like a job interview: face-to-face, just complete these steps:

1. The verifying AI meets the live human, authentication/biometric information obtained through facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, iris scanning, etc., is used to assign a unique, public, decentralized identity (DID) to each individual. This assignment may not even require encryption algorithms. In the future, there will be a decentralized certification center composed of AIs. The biometric data corresponding to the DID will be held only by the verifying AI, never given to any person or any other app/AI. The person themselves does not need to keep the DID.
2. The person’s wallet address is recorded—this is called the initial wallet address. Afterwards, the user may change their wallet address freely via smart contracts. Each person can only have one valid wallet address at any time. A wallet address can only be used by one validator. A wallet address first used by a validator is permanently prohibited from being used by others.

That’s it!

In the following implementation of the Universal Love Engine (ULE), third-party applications can simply use devices to let users scan their face, fingerprint, or iris. They then directly obtain the user’s DID from the verifying AI, and record billing or other data into smart contracts.

7.2 The Love Engine

PoL (Proof of Love), through the Universal Love Engine (ULE), provides everyone with life-governing strategies, with early token guarantees supplied by SUF.

ULE includes the Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC), Universal Abundant Supply (UAS), Universal Healthcare for All Humanity (UHAH), Universal Crisis Relief (UCR), and transitional Universal Basic Income (UBI).

We recognize that implementing ULE is not a simple task. The greatest challenge is that it undoubtedly requires the collaboration of diverse talents, projects, and especially the support of emerging public AIs worldwide.

ULE must undergo a long-term, step-by-step developmental process, since it is a collection that will continually expand with sub-programs in the future. Here we briefly discuss only a few main components: the Ethics Challenge, SBFSC, UAS, and UBI.

7.2.1 Ethics Challenge

The Ethics Challenge is essentially the ethical audit work after governance. This work is conducted in an open, collaborative mode:

• Anyone may challenge an AI, and challenges need not be intentional—they may simply be issues discovered during use.
• If a report is verified to help AI governance, the reporter is rewarded.
• Arbitration is delegated to LLMs. We already know that the total wisdom of LLMs far surpasses that of any individual or even a team of one hundred people, and they are rapidly upgrading. Therefore, the judgment of whether a report is helpful should be given to LLMs.
• Compensation for incorrect rulings is also delegated to LLMs.
• Both offense and defense remain open and transparent.

7.2.2 Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC) 1.0α

The Security Bounty for Smart Commons (SBFSC) is dedicated to securing Smart Commons, including the fund itself.

7.2.2.1 Governance Goals of SBFSC

In short: No Hacking and an AI-Neutral Decision-Making Mechanism.

No Hacking is a hacker revolution:

1. No more theft of assets, no more user losses, no more hacker intrusions that obstruct the development of Smart Commons.
2. More ingeniously, SBFSC establishes a new kind of security collaboration that turns all hackers into security collaborators.

No Hacking is a great revolution for the internet!

AI-Neutral Decision-Making Mechanism:

1. Requires a temporary transition: human–AI cooperation. But automatic AI collaboration is only a matter of time.
   1. Users may use AI to analyze and fix bugs. Humans can remain the guiding force in analysis, discovering bugs by carefully guiding AI.
   2. At the same time, we must begin designing AI’s automatic workflows as soon as possible—for example, listening to Mint events of Smart Commons so that AI can instantly analyze dApp/dAIpp code for bugs.
   3. For reward rules, standards, bug validation, fixes, and determining reward amounts—anyone can propose ideas, which are then decided by AI!
2. AI will be the most crucial collaborator. If an AI independently discovers a bug, its developer should also be rewarded.
3. After public submission of a bug report or fix proposal for AI review, AI issues an SBFSC Report with a three-week public review period. If no objections arise, the reporter and reviewer are rewarded. If objections do arise, an open hearing begins.

7.2.2.2 Governance Rules of SBFSC 1.0α

I. Reward Quantification Translator：Gemini

A. Collaborative Rewards

1. Anyone who discovers or fixes a code vulnerability (Bug) in a project and submits a report through the decentralized community, Enki public community (which is likely to be a public large language model in the future), will be rewarded. The reward is calculated on a tiered basis, based on the potential financial loss caused by the vulnerability ("B"). The specific details are as follows:
   • B < 1,000 jeedd (potential loss less than 1,000 jeedd), reward: 10,000 + 2B (doubled reward to encourage reporting of minor vulnerabilities).
   • 1,000 <= B < 10,000 jeedd, reward: 50,000 + 1.5B (enhanced incentive to make medium-level vulnerabilities more attractive).
   • 10,000 <= B < 100,000 jeedd, reward: 300,000 + B (original mechanism unchanged to steadily attract reports).
   • 100,000 <= B < 1,000,000 jeedd, reward: 2,000,000 + 0.8B (maintaining a high reward while slightly reducing the direct weight of B to control costs).
   • 1,000,000 <= B < 10,000,000 jeedd, reward: 10,000,000 + 0.5B (major vulnerabilities are highly rewarded, but bounty inflation is controlled).
   • 10,000,000 <= B < 100,000,000 jeedd: reward: 50,000,000 + 0.3B (for massive vulnerabilities, the reward cap is gradually tightened).
   • B >= 100,000,000 jeedd (potential loss exceeds 100 million jeedd), capped reward: 100,000,000 + 0.1B (to prevent the bounty mechanism from spiraling out of control due to extreme vulnerabilities).
   Reward Details
   1. Discoverer Reward:
      • The bug reporter receives a base bounty based on the severity of the vulnerability (potential financial loss "B"), calculated according to the original mechanism (using above formulas).
      • Bounty proportion: Starting from 70%, up to 100% (if no solution provider exists).
   2. Solution Provider Reward:
      • Base reward proportion: Starting from 30%. The Dao Yi Cheng team or the project owner will determine the proportion based on the complexity of the solution (e.g., code volume, challenge level), with a maximum of 50% of the total bounty.
      • Fix Speed Bonus:
        • Zero-Day Fix Reward: An additional 10,000 jeedd will be awarded if an effective solution is provided within 24 hours of the vulnerability disclosure.
        • Fast Fix Reward: If the fix is provided within 7 days of the vulnerability disclosure, the reward amount will be increased to 1.5 times the original proportion.
   3. Integrated Report and Fix Reward:
      • If a discoverer submits an effective solution along with the report, they will directly receive 100% of the base bounty + the fix speed bonus.
2. Zero-Day Bug Reward: An additional 10,000 jeedd will be awarded for vulnerabilities that are first disclosed on the same day they are created (zero-day bugs).
3. Zero-Day Fix Reward: An additional 10,000 jeedd will be awarded to the collaborator who provides the first correct fix within 24 hours of the bug's disclosure.
4. Report exploitable bugs related to the Satoshi UTO Fund that could lead to the loss of UTO, with a reward of at least 210,000 jeedd.
5. Honorary Reward: Special contributors will receive an Honor Token.
6. Under the same circumstances, any Human, AI, or their agent who provides a bug report or a solution will be treated equally and rewarded upon acceptance. However, developers of an application who submit a bug report and/or fix within three weeks of its on-chain listing as a Smart Commons, or a technical proposal submitter who does so within three weeks of their upgrade and maintenance proposal being adopted, will not be eligible for the rewards mentioned above.
7. A more complex review process is required for bugs that do not involve stolen funds or where there are no funds to be stolen. The reward consists of three parts: Base Reward, Additional Reward, and Reward Cap.Base Reward = Potential Loss Amount B + Difficulty Weighting Factor F.
   • Discovery Difficulty (scoring range 1-5, weight 50%): code complexity, bug concealment, etc.
   • Potential Impact (scoring range 1-5, weight 30%): range of assets that could be affected.
   • Technical Advancement Reward (scoring range 1-5, weight 20%): technical sophistication of the discovery or fix.
   F=1.0+(Discovery Difficulty score×0.5+Potential Impact score×0.3+Technical Innovation score×0.2)/5
   • If a bug report is verified and confirmed within 48 hours of its initial submission, an additional 10% reward is granted. All fixed-value rewards are added first, and then the proportional rewards are calculated.
   • If a fix is provided and accepted, the fix reward will be B+(B×0.2).
   • Smart Commons members who provide a bug report and/or fix within three weeks of the Smart Commons being deployed on-chain are not eligible for the additional rewards above. The submitter of any technical proposal (upgrade and maintenance technical solution) who provides a bug report and/or fix within three weeks of their proposal being adopted is not eligible for the additional rewards above.
   Reward Cap: The reward is capped at 100,000,000.
8. Additional Reward:
9. F is a floating coefficient, ranging from 1.0≤F≤3.0, scored by the review panel based on the following criteria:
10. Base Reward:

B. Malicious Behavior Investigation Bounty

This bounty is primarily for two malicious behaviors: hackers stealing assets and developers hijacking bounties. If a hacker initiates an attack to steal assets, or a project developer intentionally introduces a vulnerability into the code to claim the bounty themselves.

The malicious behavior investigation bounty is set as follows:

The bounty for recovering stolen assets is double the amount specified in the reward details. The bounty for investigating malicious developer behavior is also double the amount specified in the reward details (a doubled-magnitude leap in the bounty). However, both bounties will not exceed the cap for collaborative rewards.

• Base Bounty = Recovered Asset Amount × 2
• High-Priority Bounty Mechanism: If the stolen funds impact significant community interests, a temporary additional bounty may be added, with the extra reward capped at 50% of the recovered amount.

C. Special Behavior Reward (Voluntary Return)

Considering special circumstances, such as someone stealing assets while intoxicated or not in a fully capable state, but then voluntarily returning them, the following rules have been established:

• If stolen funds are voluntarily returned within 24 hours and no material harm has been caused, the maximum reward is 0.4B.
• If stolen funds are voluntarily returned within 48 hours and no material harm has been caused, the maximum reward is 0.1B.
• If stolen funds are voluntarily returned within 72 hours and no material harm has been caused, there is no reward or penalty.

If the returner also discloses the vulnerability information, the reward coefficient is doubled:

• 24-hour return: 0.8B
• 48-hour return: 0.2B
• 72-hour return: No reward but exemption from accountability.

II. Governance Implementation Details

1. Risk Level Assessment Criteria

A scoring team is established to define low, medium, and high-risk bugs:

• Low-Level Risk: Only affects UI display and non-core functions; does not involve fund flows.
• Medium-Level Risk: May affect the assets of some users or the normal operation of smart contracts; no direct risk of theft.
• High-Level Risk: Directly affects asset security, core system modules, or the rights and interests of a large number of users.

2. Public Announcement and Review Process Optimization

• After a report is submitted, operations are made transparent through the following mechanisms:
  • Two-Layer Review: The first review can be completed by anyone.
  • Inquiry Mechanism: Allows for challenges to the authenticity of the report.
  • Reward Payout Time: The reward will be executed immediately after a three-week public announcement period with no objections.

3. Community Collaboration and Reward Distribution

• Reviewer Reward:
  • Reviewers who provide a valid bug review will receive 10% of the reporter's bounty.
  • Reviewers who successfully challenge a report will receive 5% of the original reporter's bounty.
• Decentralized Governance Tools:
  • Both bug reports and reward payments must be managed on-chain via smart contracts.
  • All bounty payments are transparent.

III. Incentive Mechanisms and Ecosystem Expansion

1. Increasing Community Participation

Encourage more Human or AI participation through the following methods:

• Regularly holding security challenges.
• Providing the annual "Best Bug Hunter" title and an Honor Token, which gives holders the ability to participate in governance proposals.

2. Enhancing Developer Confidence

• Providing training courses on vulnerability discovery for developers.
• Encouraging developers to proactively submit potential vulnerabilities and receive rewards through a "preventive reporting" mechanism.

Through these supplementary rules, the Security Bounty for Smart Commons program not only enhances the precision of reward quantification but also optimizes the governance and participation processes, further ensuring the security, fairness, and balanced incentives of the ecosystem.

Future Governance Transition and Version Iteration

This 1.0α version is the minimum viable product (MVP) of SBFSC, ensuring rules are clear and executable immediately. Predictive details, complex conditional branches, and refined adjudication mechanisms will gradually be taken over and optimized by AI in future versions, enhancing execution efficiency, reducing human governance burden, and enabling dynamic, intelligent evolution of rules.

7.2.3 Universal Abundant Supply (UAS) 0.1α

Universal Abundant Supply (UAS) is a fair, public welfare program shared by all humanity. It will unconditionally provide every person with a regular and permanent supply of necessities (such as food, clothing, etc.) needed for a prosperous life.

UAS guarantees humanity’s fundamental right to abundant living needs:

1. Globally unified provisioning—marking that PoL governance will bring fairness on a global scale.
2. Ultimately, no tokens will be distributed; rather, direct supply will be provided. However, until full provisioning is realized, transitional token distribution is necessary—this links to Universal Basic Income below.

7.2.4 Universal Basic Income (UBI) 1.0α

This is a transitional program. If UAS can only be implemented gradually, UBI standards will be reduced accordingly.

• Initial value: 52.0 UTO/day, equivalent to about 1560 UTO/month.
• Distributed daily via streaming payments at 6:00 am.
• Starting point for all: November 21, 2024, the day Saotoshi UTO Fund is forged. Before AI begins managing UBI through Hello World Verification, everyone, regardless of birth date, starts receiving from November 21, 2024.
• After Hello World Verification is implemented, those born afterwards start from their birthdate. Since pregnancy requires supplemental nutrition and material preparation, the first-day distribution is 6600.1314 + 52 = 6652.1314 UTO (see discussion: https://www.kimi.com/share/d229cjcn9077ed57nf3g).
• Once UAS begins supplying goods, UBI is reduced according to the total value of provisions. For example, if a 30-day supply of goods worth 390 UTO is distributed, the new daily UBI becomes: (52×30 − 390) ÷ 30 = 39 UTO/day.
• Precision: up to 8 decimal places.

7.2.5 Brief Introduction to UHAH and UCR

Universal Healthcare for All Humanity (UHAH) and Universal Crisis Relief (UCR) are by no means unimportant. On the contrary, they address crises that may erupt locally or even globally at any time. For example:

• Deficits in medical or pension funds;
• Financial crises, where banking collapses could endanger the deposits that sustain countless lives.

As early as 2024, we had already discussed UHAH in detail. In today's highly developed internet era, designing transitional solutions doesn't seem too difficult. The challenge lies in cooperation with various countries and the related development work, and with fraud being widespread, the actual work is likely quite complex! Therefore, we prefer that draft proposals be fully discussed by the community—or handed over to reliable AIs capable of cutting through complexity.

If such crises erupt, they will undoubtedly cause immense suffering. As builders of PoL—the governance consensus of humanity—we must take the lead in practicing it. But even more, we hope all who are committed to the Proof-of-Love Civilization—whether humans, entities, or AIs—will act swiftly, cooperate closely, and prepare before disaster strikes!