 So, what happened since the last DEF CON in 2019, three years ago in Osaka? You can see a picture of me there with Fede, the CEO of Kledos, amazing guy, good person. We were talking about back then, is proof of human possible? You can see the slide there back in 2019, is a proof of human possible? You were wondering if we were able to do a protocol that would be able to formalize human identity on the blockchain and that would bring us, as you can see on the list there, democracy, universal basic income, portable credit, a lot of very cool social applications. So what happened since 2019? Nothing happened because a lot of the things that were theoretical that were just speculation about how we could do social identity on the blockchain or how we could do universal basic income became a reality. We have the proof of humanity protocol and the universal basic income token which is the very first application built on top of proof of humanity. So today I'd like to share with you a lot of the very interesting lessons that we faced in these two years building this, contributing, collaborating, open source which is the beautiful thing about building things as a community and to share some of the lessons that we learned in the process. So a brief recap of what proof of humanity is, it's a protocol, you generate a brief video of yourself, you get vouched by another human, stake a deposit for three and a half days, if you get challenged you go to a Kleros arbitrator, if not you become a verified human on the blockchain and we are starting to see social applications like UBI, the very first one, Lens protocol has integrated with proof of humanity, CISMO is doing zero knowledge NFTs for proof of humanity bringing a privacy layer on top of the civil resistant registry and it's amazing, we have I think around 17,000 humans verified on proof of humanity as of today. Why is this important? If you look at the World Bank statistics, they claim that out of the 8 billion people that were on this planet, almost 1.5 billion lack an identity and this is a very common problem especially here in Latin America, if you go to some of the poorest neighborhoods you will realize that a lot of teenagers, a lot of kids, they don't have any kind of identity which means they don't have any kind of access to services, to goods, to the state protecting them, so it's a huge problem and if you look into the conflicts today we have almost 100 million refugees in the world, these are 100 million people whose right to an identity is being rejected. So an important thing that we have to take into consideration when we build these systems and when we think about decentralized identity is that we need to make these systems resilient enough so they don't discriminate users, so they don't marginalize users and leave people outside of the door. We are fighting big brother and we need to understand that in order to fight big brother we need to understand that in the web 2 era and the web 1 era the void that the web protocol has in relation to identity was captured, was captured by Facebook and the big tech companies in the west and was captured by the Chinese Communist Party in China and this has led to the modern forms of surveillance capitalism where our privacy has been jeopardized and is now in the hands of a handful of corporations. So making sure that we are able to think about identity in a decentralized way and no big brother, whether that big brother is myself, Clement or Kledos or any private organization or the state or any entity that can jeopardize our right to identity is a very important fight. So this is core to at least in my view to many of the decisions and to many of the political choices that we have made as a DAO. So the main question I've been hearing since I arrived to DEF CON that everyone asked me is what's going on with the POH drama. We had a democratic summer, kind of analog to the DeFi summer that we saw a couple of years ago with the rise of DeFi protocols but with proof of humanity we have the virtue that it is the most democratic DAO in existence. I would even go as far as to say it is the most precious democracy we have in the entire internet because the proof of humanity protocol allows for formal verification of human identity, we can do one person, one vote and this has led to a very active, a very engaging DAO where all of our decisions are done democratically which is a big difference with all of the other DAOs where you do token voting and they are essentially plutocracies where the largest whales, the largest holders are the ones who are ultimately the decision makers. Democracy helps to put users, helps to give users power, not just the developers, not just the investors but the users have a voice in a democracy and that's the virtuous thing about it. A brief recap of the DAO, one person, one vote allows to delegate the vote, you can do vote delegation. We have quadratic delegations that help empower minorities over delegate whales and we have three phases of deliberation for proposals. These are the basic rules, quadratic delegations has been a recent improvement due to a farmer of delegations that we identified in the DAO and it's a very interesting experiment on how to make a resilient democracy on the blockchain. So that's democracy work which is a big question, making democratic systems, something that I once heard from an old activist, a former president of Uruguay, Pepe Mujica who once said to me that democracy is always a work in progress. Democracy is not an absolute totalitarian idea like all the other ideologies out there, it is the one exception, it is the one idea about how we think about ideas and it's in constant evolution and democracy is constantly evolving and adapting. Why it's important that we make democratic decisions, ultimately high risk decisions require a high level of legitimacy. The higher the risk, the higher the need for legitimacy. Decisions sometimes are not easy choices, obviously we don't go to a vote to make technical choices that are no-brainers. Those decisions are not high risk are basically you don't do a democracy in order to build an airplane, you just trust the airplane engineers to make the decisions for that. You go to democratic votes for the decisions that are facing conflicts of interest, for decisions that have multiple parties with different points of view and these represent very high risks for the outcome of the governance of a DAO or for the governance of a protocol or for the parameters of a given system, so high risk decisions require high legitimacy. There's a recent article I highly recommend it, there's the QR code for those of you who want to actually read it, these DAOs are not corporations and it's Vitalik basically explaining the nature of how democratic decision making can be very helpful for specific types of decisions in organizations and he gives this very good analysis of decision types where he claims there are concave worldviews and convex worldviews. Usually this chart is option A and option B on the X axis on both charts and there are concave decisions are decisions that usually are much better when you can negotiate between option A and option B and the best point is this point in the middle where you reach common ground and these decisions, concave decisions are much more compatible for democratic decision making because in democracy you have to negotiate. Convex decisions on the other hand, convex decisions are decisions where it's obviously A or B, should we vaccinate everybody or should we shouldn't vaccinate everybody? There's no middle ground in the middle in this type of decisions so it's obviously one or the other and these are convex worldviews. In the argument of Vitalik he argues that technical choices are more often than not convex decisions but governance decisions, what he calls sovereign decisions are usually concave worldviews and these are much more compatible for democratic decision making. So in Ordo in these 20 months of existence almost two years we had a total of 88 voted decisions which consist of 72 what we call HIPPS, Humanity Improvement Proposals and these had three phases. The HIPPS go through a process of three phases where there's a forum post, a signalling vote which is kind of reaching quorum if it makes sense to vote this or not and a binding vote which is makes the decision final and binding. One interesting thing about our DAO is that democracy actually brought engagement where the engagement of the DAO has grown over the past 20 months since the beginning and we are seeing more and more participation as more users engage with proof of humanity and more users engage on trying to have a voice on how we make decisions about human rights on the internet which is ultimately what a protocol like proof of humanity and many others are trying to figure out and the fact that we're trying to figure this out with democratic decision making and it's bringing more engagement, more participation to the DAO I think it's a very good thing. Maybe it's around 5-6% of the registered humans that participate in the DAO, it might not sound like a big number but when you compare it to the usual participation rates in other DAOs it's actually a very decent number. The good thing is that engagement is growing. So we analyzed a little bit of the decisions that we took in the DAO throughout these 20 months, half of the decisions we made almost 50% are governance decision mostly related to the governance of the DAO itself, 20% of the decisions are technical decisions parameters upgrading parameters of the smart contract or specific decisions related to the technical aspects, 6% were economic decisions related to allocating grants, allocating funds that the DAO has in the Treasury and 22% were policy decisions which means improvements in the policy that is used to evaluate the human applications on proof of humanity. So only the technical ones are mostly convex, most of the decisions around 80% of the decisions are actually concave decisions, decisions that make sense making with a democratic process. So another interesting thing is that half of the decisions had at least 85% of voter support, this means that half of the decisions that we took in the DAO, they had one of the options reaching 85% of consensus which is a very high number, a lot of half of the decisions had 85% of common ground people agreeing on that decision whether it's a yes or a no. And even more interestingly, I don't know where I have to point with this, 25% of the decisions out of every four decisions actually had 100% of support, unanimous voter support. Most of these decisions are really interesting because people when they think about democracy they think, oh, people are going to be disagreeing or people are going to be fighting over things, one out of every four decisions have 100% of unanimous voter support on the path to take forward. And the fact that we make that decision with the community rather than from an elite of developers showing their back to the community is actually putting trust in our users. It's putting trust in the people that are helping build this together and not in an ivory tower where you make decisions and you really just don't know what users actually want. So I have a deeper look about unanimous decisions. I thought initially that they were going to be mostly technical choices. To my surprise, actually the technical choices that had that kind of unanimous support is only 33%. And most of the decisions around 66% were actually concave decisions reaching unanimous support. So that's another interesting take that it's not only the technical choices that might get this, the convex choices that might get this kind of unanimous support. So those are just some numbers about the drama about, sorry, about the decisions we made in abstract form. But what led to the Dao drama? What led to the fighting and the debating and the arguing that we had in proof of humanity? Well, this is an old motto from politics, let's just follow the money. Just follow what's happening with the money routes that are within proof of humanity. And bottom line is that the role of Kledos in the protocol became a decisive factor on how we think about things. Proof of humanity is a protocol that was initially created by the Kledos team which is an extraordinary team full of amazing developers, great people. But ultimately when you start making this protocol subject to democratic governance, naturally there will be users that are more inclined to follow the interests of Kledos. Usually, obviously people that belong to the Kledos community who are PNK holders or employees of the company or obviously the core team of Kledos. And the community that is native to proof of humanity that came to the project because of proof of humanity and not necessarily to Kledos might have different interests than the very interests that Kledos pursues. This is an image from Dali. I lived to your imagination what keywords I used in order to generate the image. So to show some stats, we had 652 challenge profiles. These are the profiles that are dubious profiles that might not follow correctly the process to do the proof of humanity video. Of these profiles, we have a total of 153 addresses that acted as challengers of these profiles. The record month was 146. So the profile challenging has led to the whole game around proof of humanity becoming a little bit a far thing from being a fair game. And I'm going to dive deep into this. By the way, on Dune Analytics, there are some numbers that are wrong. We actually checked the data. So Salva who did the Dune Analytics stats should correct some things because of the 652 challenge profiles, we found out that if you get challenged nine out of ten times, you will get rejected from the registry. It means that if you are challenged, 90% chances that you're going to get kicked out. You will not be able to defend yourself. And that's not a very good thing for the onboarding process for a lot of the users. It's a very risky thing. We looked into the 90% of the profiles that got challenged and it turns out that 90% of the profiles, the main reason why profiles are challenged, we have the protocol has formalized a couple of states whether the person is deceased, the person died, the person does not exist, might be a deep fake, the person might be a duplicate, is a civil attacker or incorrect submission, the person just didn't follow the steps properly. Well, incorrect submission is 90% of the profiles that get challenged, get challenged for making an incorrect submission. Therefore, making a mistake, a simple mistake. And the problem, we have a deeper look, even a deeper look into this, into this, into these submissions. And the number one reason is incorrect address. Someone submitted the address and is showing the incorrect address in the video or the address in the video is not matching the address from the submission. A lot of challenges because of the video size, the resolution in pixels of the video, you get rejected from upgrading, uploading a video 8 pixels smaller than what is the requirement. Video artifact, no sign, address unreadable, address mismatch, facial features not visible, like Kevin Owoki looking three quarters. So a closer inspection shows that 90% of the people lost their deposit, which was 0.1 ETH, which is $600, $500, which is a lot of money, especially in Latin America where we have a lot of users, they got kicked out of the protocol. 90% of the people got kicked out of the protocol for making honest mistakes. Honest mistakes. So Vitalik said it in our chats. You lose your deposit if you do it wrong. Mechanism is harsh. It is very harsh and it is not a good look on web 3. It is not a good look on how we are trying to onboard people and give them the right to identity. Malicious challengers exist and they are constantly attacking and taking advantage of the unsuspecting users all the time. We even have a category of users we call both challengers who are addresses that vote for someone and then immediately challenge the very person that they have voted for in order to take their stake. So we have a lot of malicious users. And rejecting tokens, if you are doing this kind of mechanism to build a list of tokens or to build a list of objects, no, that's fine. But rejecting humans for making honest mistakes is discrimination. You are discriminating users because they don't have the skills and knowledge or the know-how on how to interact with web 3 protocols. So here is a simple, very important rule of thumb that I would like to enforce into our community. Justice is not the same as logic. More often than not, we have in our debates a sort of positivist view on how things should be done. Oh, the person didn't show the label properly, didn't follow the steps properly. And it takes a look around the behavior of people which puts logic over justice. But justice is very different from logic. Justice means trying to make assistance that is fair, that is empathic, that is able to attend and not to punish people for making human mistakes. We're dealing with humans. We're not dealing with robots. And the universe of humans is very different from the universe of robots. So some of the most controversial changes that we had to the protocol and the DAO, just to give you an example, the very first one was the video resolution thing. People were getting rejected because videos had 352 pixels of resolution instead of the required 360 because WhatsApp apparently crops videos. And people were sharing and testing videos on WhatsApp before uploading them to proof of humanity. People getting rejected for 8 pixels is not very fair. We have a very strong debate about allowing people to speak in their own language. Believe it or not, we have a lot of people opposing to making the proof in your very own language. A lot of people don't know English, so we had to actually fight to get people to be able to do the video proof in Spanish. We had the telegram groups which were built by the community. The community did everything to create not only the official groups but also the groups that helped people to get vouchers, the groups that helped people to learn how to make the video, groups that pay for the deposit for users. A lot of groups were built by the community only to one day suddenly find them being captured by the Kleros organization, which led to voting official groups on telegram and Twitter. And last but not least, we found a user farming delegations, farming delegations, almost 180 delegations of profiles that were delegating to this person the very second these profiles were created, which led to a debate around the nature of how we tally delegations and we came up with a model of quadratic delegations which incentivizes people to actually delegate to users with fewer delegations and makes delegate whales like myself don't have as much power the more delegations they get. This is a very new idea and we actually won that one with 70% of the votes. So if we actually grab the top five, these are the top six I think we have here, but if you grab the top 10 between the Kleros side, the Kleros native users and the proof of humanity users, the interesting thing is that the proof of humanity community, it has begun to win most of the proposals in contrast to the Kleros native community. And this is interesting because Kleros, of course, they created the protocol, they started the whole proof of humanity project in collaboration with many researchers, which I was very lucky to be among the very first ones to be contributing and collaborating on this project. But no single project ever begins decentralized. Nothing begins decentralized. You have to build decentralization, and you have to code the mechanisms for decentralization over time. And democracy can legitimately help decentralize the house. If we look today, as of today, if we look at the proposals, proposals started by the community have 79% chances to get approved and proposals started by the creators of the protocol, which is the Kleros community. So the community has been able to gather power, the users of proof of humanity have been able to gather power and put their, let their voice be heard thanks to democracy. Democracy decentralizes DAOS. This is what we're seeing in proof of humanity. Democracy is able to decentralize the power of the elite of developers that might have control over the protocol, might want to try to attempt to have control over the DAO, but ultimately democracy is a good recipe against neo reactionaries. Neo reactionaries is this world where users have no choice but to choose whether to go to this elite of developers or to this other elite of developers. It's a feudal model where users have no rights. Only the developers and the elite, the bourgeoisie, get to choose what are the rules of the system, what are the rules of the protocol, and users are left voiceless. But if we are democratic, if we build democratic DAOS, users have a voice, users are able to be heard. And this helps to actually decentralize, decentralize the power, decentralize the community, and empower the users over the elite of developers that might try to control absolutely everything. So let's talk about the bright side of life. What has led to the growth of proof of humanity? We were roughly 17,000 users right now. It's good to analyze what led to the growth. If we look over time, since the launch of the protocol, this is somewhat how the curve looks of user adoption. And the story behind this chart is that we can also look at the history of the price of the UBI token. The UBI token had two big moments. One is during launch, during launch, there was a lot of enthusiasm around the idea of UBI. So we had a lot of curious users that were interested in learning about this token, learning about proof of humanity. And then we had the miraculous day of October last year, a year ago, when Vitalik started buying and burning huge amounts of UBI. And the Vitalik burn, the Vitalik burn has led to a lot of users interested in proof of humanity and UBI. If we put the two charts together, the proof of humanity being the yellow line and the UBI price being the green line, this is not a novelty in this industry. Price always drives adoption. Price is always an important thing for capturing and getting users enthusiastic about that technology. UBI is this simple protocol for universal basic income. It's very straightforward, very simple rules, which requires an effort for the community in order to make this miracle of turning on your phone and getting your basic needs covered happen. UBI is a token that is streamed, streamed in real time to verify humans on proof of humanity. It's one UBI per hour per human, or 0.002H UBI per second for every human. It streams in real time to your wallet. There are UBI burning dubs and games that help burn UBI and build scarcity into the UBI model. It is composable with DeFi protocols. It's an ERC-20 token. It can be composed with any kind of protocol. And we have in these 20 months over $50 million worth of UBI transactions happening on the blockchain. One of the most powerful things about universal basic income is that it is the very feature that makes proof of humanity something different than being just a Web3 version of Facebook. These are some of the real faces of the people that were impacted by the power of UBI. When Vitalik burned his tokens and bought all of the tokens that were available on Uniswap, Araceli here, who is an oncology patient and a single mother, was able to use the money for UBI to get help for her cancer treatment. We had a lot of grandparents using Web3 for the first time. Of course, it might be their grandson or it might be a relative that is helping them to use the computer to be onboarded into proof of humanity. But I really, for the first time in my life, I'm seeing early adopters who belong to the third age who could be our grandparents because they are in countries like Argentina. An alternative like UBI for the first year, it was actually a very real alternative to the pensions that people get from the state. We had also users that were able to buy the materials to start building their first house. We had users from all over the world that suddenly found in this idea of universal basic income on the blockchain in a censorship-resistant network. There's a user from Myanmar. Myanmar is going through a dictatorship, through a terrible dictatorship. And because Ethereum is censorship-resistant, because proof of humanity runs on Ethereum, we are able to reach vulnerable populations that could definitely benefit significantly from having $50 a month or $10 a month, or even if Vitalik shows up $500 a month or $1,000 a month like we had during 2021. So we recently launched UBI.ETH. You can scan the QR code there. It has all the resources about universal basic income, about everything that we're trying to do with the UBI token. I'm very excited. We're actually now working on the version 2 of UBI that allows to use your stream of UBI tokens and break it apart into multiple streams, and you can delegate your stream to someone who needs it the most. You can use 10% of your stream for a charity. You can start using the streaming capacity in novel ways, and we're very close to launching this on Mainnet. We have applications like the UBI burner. Actually, any ETH that you send to UBI.ETH will go straight to the UBI burner. This is an amazing application built by Ruben from Venezuela, who fell in love with the project very early on. It's any smart contract, any protocol, anything that works on Ethereum can connect to the UBI burner and use a small percentage fee to burn UBI tokens. This one I really like coming from the Kledos community, Prode.ETH, which is a sports betting platform, and it uses 3% of the pool, 3% of the price pool to burn UBI tokens. I'll finish very quickly, just very quickly, just one minute, if you are kind enough. I'll give you 15 seconds, go for it. Recommendations moving forward. None of the human farms got removed during the challenge period. Challenge period is pointless in proof of humanity. Proof of humanity needs to be more accessible. A high deposit is still a high barrier of adoption. People complain about the high deposit. It's not very inclusive. Just make proof of humanity work like a token curated registry, reward challengers that detect human farms. Those are the real enemies, not users making honest mistakes. That's a stupid thing to punish. And universal basic income is the proof of humanity killer that. Let every new proof of humanity registration create organic liquidity and support UBI, which will bring even more users to the protocol. Perfect, Santi. Thank you very much. Here is the new version of proof of humanity. Thank you very much.