One thing I just noticed. I've had ideas and let them go by without doing anything about them. Well in particular GitCoin, I think this is something I'd been talking about for years when I first learned of Ethereum. However I had it in the context of a much larger system. Maybe this is something to think about. Don't need to think about the whole system all of the time. Sometimes you can take a piece and execute directly on that. Maybe this is less elegant (and I think it is) but ultimately the results can be achieved. Is that such a bad thing? I think not. So then I think the question is for me. What is my most specific idea? Probably the LTE network. If possible to deploy it really could be a boon. Maybe I really should look into doing it at small scale and see what can be done. Regardless of the why. I think it gives individuals more power and I think that is good.

Anyhow. Read a couple of papers this morning.

So I am struggling to fully understand this. I have the mathematical background to understand but I think I will need to dive in deep with a real world example to actually understand. All the theory in the world is nice, but I need a practical example. I think some things can be assumed. For example Homomorphic encryption. This can easily be explained and assumed since we know it works.

I think generally the idea is sound, but I don't fully understand what the proof is actually useful for. Why do I want to prove that a computation is valid? Beyond this, what does this statement even mean? That is was computed correctly? So I don't need to know what it was, but know it was valid? Hmmm...

This is an idea which I think is interesting. Especially when using the calculator on the website. Basically it distributes money based more on the number of people contributing rather than the amount of money each individual contributes.

It has two pretty intense assumptions if you ask me.

- That every individual is recognizable in the system
- Resources between individuals are equitably distributed

Both of these assumptions seem to be super key. If you don't have 1, then you can easily spoof the entire system. Just create a ton of accounts which contribute a small amount, and you get a much larger amount. Basically 1 implies some universal identity system. This is controversial in and of itself. Something I am curious about but realize the flaws.

Regarding 2, it is spoken about in the context of what QF is trying to achieve. That it wants to maximize "dollar equivalent value". I think of this as providing the most value to individuals given the input. However this could be an inaccurate summary. It is my intuition. So basically if you don't have an equitable distribution to begin with, then the results that you might get are going to be inequitable. Garbage in Garbage out. Guess this is nothing new, but points out this is a problem to be solved. What are the ways we can reduce this gap?