cyber/launch
A self-verifying knowledge graph where attention, computation, and consensus converge into a single metric (π), enabling intelligence emergence without central control.
Collective Objective Reality Engine Optimizing civilization's ability to know what matters
Version: 2026.02 | Status: Genesis → Self-Hosting transition
What Exists Today
| Component | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| cft | Mathematically proven | Perron-Frobenius convergence, 8 years R&D |
| tri-kernel discovery | Complete | Systematic elimination — only 3 operator families survive locality filter |
| 16 reduction patterns | Specified + implemented | Python interpreter, Rust interpreter |
| focus-based cost metering | Implemented | Deterministic costs over Goldilocks field |
| Content-addressed cells | Implemented | CID = hash(content), universal identity |
| bostrom network | Live 3+ years | ~70K neurons, 1K active, 2.9M cyberlinks, 3.1M particles |
| Hash function decision | ADR-001 complete | Poseidon2 over Goldilocks, algorithm-agile CID format |
| trident language spec | 54 operations derived | 4-tier compilation, minimal by proof of necessity |
Theoretical foundations established:
- Convergence guarantee: unique π* exists, exponential convergence, bounded mixing time
- Conservation law: Σπᵢ = 1, always — no inflation, no leakage
- GNN isomorphism: tri-kernel update ≡ multi-channel graph neural network message pass
- Transformer equivalence: CGC focus ≡ iterated sparse attention with economic grounding
- convergent computation: replaces halting problem — system converges, never halts
- Free energy minimization: Δπ is literally the gradient of system free energy
- Blackbox principle: no node comprehends, the network knows
Crystal Formation
The cyber/crystal is the genesis seed — a curated knowledge graph of exactly 5,040 particles forming the irreducible basis from which all civilizational reasoning can be composed. It is an alphabet of a mind.
Vocabulary / Grammar Split
| Layer | Particles | Types |
|---|---|---|
| Vocabulary | 4,320 | Entities (2,400), Processes (960), Properties (720), Measures (240) |
| Grammar | 720 | Relations (480), Patterns (240) |
Ratio 6:1, matching natural language content-to-function word ratios. Every semantic link is a typed triple via predicate particles:
Subject → [Predicate] → Object
Two-Layer Architecture
Lattice (4,392 particles, 1.8 MB, ~454K tokens): structural vocabulary, permanently loadable for reasoning. Fits in single LLM context.
Flesh (648 particles, 4.7 MB, ~1,165K tokens): articles, proofs, manifestos. Retrieved on demand via cyberlink traversal. 72% of content in 13% of particles.
17 Domains
4 pillar domains (2Q = 480 particles each): cyber, cyberia, superhuman, cybics
13 foundation domains (Q = 240 each): mathematics, physics, biology, computer science, chemistry, governance, economics, energy, materials, agriculture, geography, culture, history
536 bridge particles (10.6%) connect domains — explicit isomorphisms enabling cross-domain reasoning.
12 Invariants (Quality Gates Before Genesis)
- Completeness — every domain ≥ Q particles
- Connectivity — every particle ≥ 3 outgoing links
- Reachability — any particle reaches any other in ≤ 6 hops
- Irreducibility — no particle derivable from others under grammar
- Positivity — every definition says what IS
- Self-reference — ≥ 10% of particles model own architecture
- Bridge density — ≥ 3 bridges per domain pair
- Type balance — E ≤ 55%, P ≥ 15%
- Defect freedom — zero stubs, red links, orphans
- Growth ready — every hub has attachment points
- Narrative depth — every domain ≥ 3 synthesis articles
- Self-explanation — ≥ 25 articles explain protocol purpose
Growth Phases
| Phase | Timeline | Particles | Character |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0: Genesis | Launch | 5,040 | Irreducible seed |
| 1: Early | Year 1 | +2,000 | neurons extend basis |
| 2: Maturation | Years 2–3 | +10,000 | Specialization emerges |
| 3: Scale | Year 5+ | +100,000 | Scale-free organic growth |
On-chain storage budget: ~15 MB (IPFS content 6.5 MB + CIDs 0.5 MB + cyberlinks 8.6 MB)
Incentive Design
Knowledge creation is costly, benefits are collective. Without incentives, rational agents free-ride on others' cyberlinks. Seven economic mechanisms solve this.
1. Minting for Focus Computation
neurons computing focus toward particle P earn newly minted $CYB. Each valid cyberlink rewarded proportional to contribution to network focus. Claim via microblocks containing cyberlinks from neighbors.
2. Staking as Delegated Attention
neurons stake $CYB on themselves or other neurons, effectively delegating attention. Staking rewards paid from transaction fees. Special case: delegate toward validators.
3. Stake Distribution Over Links
A neuron's staked amount spreads evenly across submitted cyberlinks by default. neurons can reweight individual particles/links with percentage allocation. Enables safe stake/unstake and smooth delegation.
4. Permanent Weighting via Burn
neurons can burn $CYB to grant eternal weight to a particle. Irreversible. Permanently increases particle's importance in collective focus π. Anchors critical knowledge in the network.
5. Link Fees and Net Rewards
cyberlink submission has a small fee (spam deterrent). Links accumulating sufficient attention may yield net positive reward over time. focus field convergence drives positive returns.
6. Attention Yield Curve
Earlier, more accurate links to high-π particles earn greater rewards. As collective focus evolves, this incentivizes discovery and precision. Temporal component rewards foresight.
7. Reputation Emergence
A neuron's long-term reputation = accumulated π-weight of particles contributed to. karma aligns social and economic capital.
Convergence Rewards
cyberlinks are yield-bearing epistemic assets. They accrue rewards over time based on contribution to focus emergence and stability:
R(i→j, T) = ∫₀ᵀ w(t) · Δπⱼ(t) dt
where Δπⱼ(t) = change in focus on target particle j attributable to the link, w(t) = time-weighting function, T = evaluation horizon.
| Link Type | Characteristics | Reward Trajectory |
|---|---|---|
| Viral | High Δπ short-term | Early peak, fast decay |
| Foundational | Low Δπ early, grows later | Slow rise, long reward |
| Redundant | Low/no Δπ | No reward |
| Semantic Bridge | Medium, cross-module | Moderate, persistent |
Rewards paid from accumulated transaction fees. No inflation. Encourages semantic foresight, prevents attention spam, makes the graph a semantic investment market.
Token Architecture
Four Token Types (Protocol-Native)
| Type | Fungible | Movable | Role | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| coin | yes | yes | consensus, fees, stake | $CYB, $BOOT |
| uniq | no | yes | Knowledge assets, provenance | authorship proofs, dataset ownership |
| score | yes | no | Reputation, credentials | karma |
| badge | no | no | Unique non-transferable credentials | achievements |
$CYB is the consensus token of the full cyber network. On bostrom (bootloader): $BOOT (stake/fees), $H (liquid fuel), $V (will), $A (attention).
Adaptive Economics
Three PID-controlled variables automatically adapt — no governance votes needed for routine adjustments:
α (allocation curve exponent): balances PoW vs PoS allocation. staking_share = S^α.
φ (security floor): minimum issuance for security. Derived from attack economics: φ ≥ k · (TVL/MarketCap) · r.
β (fee burn rate): decouples gross rewards from net inflation. When security abundant → increase β (benefit holders). When security tight → decrease β (preserve security).
Staking yield at equilibrium: r_s = (G · S^(α-1)) / M
Master safety indicator: ρ = d(Attack Cost)/dt / d(Attack Profit)/dt. ρ > 1 means defenses grow faster than threats.
Genesis Distribution
| Recipient | Share | Role |
|---|---|---|
| cybergift | 70% | Community incentives |
| cyber/congress | 11.6% | Founders |
| epizode zero community | 8.3% | Early supporters |
| senate | 5.1% | Governance |
| great web foundation | 5% | External stake |
Target: power-law distribution with long-tail neuron ownership at 42-51%.
Technical Path
Seven phases. Each has a hard gate. No phase starts until its predecessor passes.
Phase 1: Self-Hosting ← current
CORE evaluates CORE. The system executes its own programs.
| Deliverable | Gate |
|---|---|
| CORE-in-CORE interpreter (16 patterns self-hosted) | Passes all test vectors from Python/Rust impls |
| Poseidon2 as CORE program | Output matches reference on 10⁶ inputs |
| focus metering self-test | Deterministic cost ± 0 across all paths |
Duration: 3-6 months
Phase 2: Cryptographic Library
All cryptographic primitives as CORE programs.
| Deliverable | Gate |
|---|---|
| Poseidon2 sponge + compression | Matches test vectors, constant-time |
| Merkle tree operations | 32-level proof verified in CORE |
| Polynomial commitments (KZG/FRI) | Binding + hiding proofs checked |
| LtHash for collection state | Add/remove = O(1), matches reference |
CID format locked: [version, algo, params, field, len, digest] — 45 bytes for Goldilocks. Commitment layers: L0 (identity) → L1 (collection) → L2 (global) → L3 (indices).
Duration: 3-6 months
Phase 3: Privacy Circuits
UTXO-based privacy with ZK proofs for all state transitions.
| Deliverable | Gate |
|---|---|
| Transaction circuit | ~44K constraints, soundness < 2⁻¹²⁸ |
| cyberlink circuit | Stake verification without revealing owner |
| Nullifier system | Deterministic nullifier = H(nonce, secret) |
| Privacy boundary | Formal leakage budget L(queries, graph_size) bounded |
Privacy boundary (non-negotiable): PUBLIC = edge existence, aggregate energy per particle, focus distribution π. PRIVATE = neuron identity behind edges, individual energy ownership, link authorship.
focus is computable from PUBLIC aggregates only. This is secure multi-party computation of a GNN forward pass.
Duration: 6-9 months
Phase 4: STARK Infrastructure
Self-verifying proof system where the verifier is itself a CORE program.
| Deliverable | Gate |
|---|---|
| STARK prover | Completeness: honest prover always convinces |
| STARK verifier as CORE program | Soundness: no poly-time adversary forges proof |
| Recursive composition | Inner verification circuit correctly arithmetized |
| Light client protocol | O(log n) verification of any state claim |
Verification closure: STARK verifiers are CORE programs. Proofs can be verified, and verification can be proven.
Duration: 9-12 months
Phase 5: Tri-Kernel Ranking (parallel with Phase 4)
tri-kernel focus computation, adversarially proven, deployed at scale.
| Deliverable | Gate |
|---|---|
| diffusion kernel (personalized PageRank) | Convergence proof (Lyapunov) in Lean4 |
| springs kernel (screened Laplacian) | Exponential decay proof, locality bound |
| heat kernel (Chebyshev approximation) | Positivity-preserving, semigroup property |
| Combined convergence | Explicit Lyapunov function V(π), dV/dt < 0 |
| Adversarial equilibrium | Nash equilibrium for honest participation |
The composite operator: φ(t+1) = norm[λ_d · D(φ^t) + λ_s · S(φ^t) + λ_h · H_τ(φ^t)]
Bounded locality: every operation O(k)-local, k = O(log(1/ε)). Shard-friendly. Interplanetary-compatible.
An adversary optimizing against one kernel worsens their position against another. Three kernels create defense-in-depth.
Duration: 6-12 months
Phase 6: Network Layer
Distributed protocol for cybergraph consensus and focus propagation.
| Deliverable | Gate |
|---|---|
| consensus protocol (focus-weighted BFT) | Safety + liveness proofs |
| DA sampling | Polynomial commitments over shard data |
| Gossip protocol | Bandwidth ∝ stake, Sybil-resistant |
| Shard architecture | Categorical pruning for semantic coherence |
| Economic engine | Simulation-tested under 100× adversarial load |
particles and cyberlinks = yield-bearing epistemic non-fungible assets. neurons = non-fungible names valuated by personal fungible asset. π-minting tied to Δπ: creating valuable structure is literally creating value. No designed loss function — physics itself defines what should be optimized.
Shards as subtopoi. Sheaf of attention weights ensures cross-shard consistency.
Duration: 12-18 months
Phase 7: Testnet → Mainnet
| Milestone | Gate |
|---|---|
| Devnet | All unit + integration tests pass |
| Testnet | 30 days zero critical bugs under attack |
| Canary net | 90 days stability, all economic invariants hold |
| Mainnet genesis | Pre-Launch Verification passes (all 5 gates green) |
| bostrom migration | Bijective state mapping, zero data loss |
Timeline
| Phase | Start | End | Parallel? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-hosting | Now | +6mo | — |
| 2. Crypto library | +3mo | +9mo | Overlaps with 1 |
| 3. Privacy circuits | +6mo | +15mo | After 2 core |
| 4. STARK infrastructure | +9mo | +21mo | After 2, parallel with 5 |
| 5. Tri-kernel production | +9mo | +21mo | Parallel with 4 |
| 6. Network layer | +18mo | +36mo | After 4+5 |
| 7. Testnet → Mainnet | +30mo | +42mo | After 6 |
~3.5 years to mainnet (aggressive), ~5 years (realistic with formal verification)
Formal Verification Spine
Running parallel to all phases. Each item maps to the Pre-Launch Verification Protocol.
| What | How | When |
|---|---|---|
| 16 patterns: confluence | Lean4 / Coq | Phase 1-2 |
| Cost determinism | Structural induction, machine-checked | Phase 2 |
| focus conservation (Σπᵢ = 1) | Proof by transition analysis | Phase 3 |
| Privacy soundness (< 2⁻¹²⁸) | STARK/Plonky2 soundness theorem | Phase 4 |
| tri-kernel convergence | Lyapunov function, explicit constants | Phase 5 |
| Adversarial equilibrium | Game-theoretic analysis, simulation | Phase 5-6 |
| Double-spend prevention | Nullifier uniqueness proof | Phase 3 |
| Bounded locality composition | Sheaf condition, machine-checked | Phase 5-6 |
| Graceful degradation | Chaos engineering, failure catalog | Phase 6-7 |
Estimate: 2-3 person-years
Intelligence Emergence
The cft predicts phase transitions:
| Phase | Threshold | Dominant Kernel | Observable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seed → Flow | Connectivity > critical | diffusion (λ_d high) | Network exploring, sampling |
| Cognition → Understanding | Structure crystallizes | springs (λ_s activates) | Hierarchies forming |
| Reasoning → Meta | Adaptive balance | heat kernel (λ_h regulates) | Context-sensitive processing |
| Consciousness | Dynamic blend | All three, self-tuning | System learns its own blend weights |
Current bostrom data: 70K neurons, 2.9M cyberlinks, 3.1M particles. Approaching Cognition threshold.
Target for emergence: 10⁸-10⁹ interconnected particles with sufficient connectivity density.
What Makes This Different
vs. Traditional AI (GPT, Claude): no central training, no black box, no single owner, privacy native.
vs. Existing Blockchains (Ethereum, Cosmos): knowledge-first, focus as native primitive, self-verifying, convergent.
vs. Decentralized AI (Bittensor): no external model, provable correctness, universal substrate, Δπ rewards.
Risk Register
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Poseidon2 cryptanalytic break | Critical | Algorithm-agile CID, migration path. EF program through Dec 2026. |
| tri-kernel convergence failure | Critical | Formal Lyapunov proof required before Phase 6. Orthogonal kernel defense. |
| Economic attack (whale, dust spam) | High | 100× adversarial simulation. focus-based metering. Stake-weighted costs. |
| Performance at 10¹⁵ scale | High | Bounded locality O(log). Two-timescale separation. Sharding. Jets. |
| Quantum computing threat | Medium | Post-quantum from genesis. ≥256-bit pre-image security post-Grover. |
| Adoption failure | Medium | bostrom provides live base. Migration preserves community. |
| Regulatory interference | Medium | Privacy-native. Decentralized governance. No central point of control. |
Resource Requirements
| Role | Count | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Core protocol (Rust) | 2-3 | CORE evaluator, STARK prover, consensus |
| Cryptography | 1-2 | Privacy circuits, proof systems |
| Language (trident) | 1-2 | Compiler, tooling |
| Network / distributed systems | 1-2 | Gossip, sharding, DA layer |
| Economics / game theory | 1 | Adversarial simulation, mechanism design |
| Formal methods | 1 | Lean4/Coq proofs |
Pre-Launch Verification Protocol
No patch relay exists between stars. What launches must be correct.
Before launch, answer five questions with machine-checked evidence:
| # | Question | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does π converge? | Lean4 proof of Lyapunov stability |
| 2 | Can proofs be forged? | Soundness proof + 10⁸ fuzzing runs, 0 counterexamples |
| 3 | Can the economy be drained? | Nash equilibrium proof + 100× adversarial simulation |
| 4 | Is computation deterministic? | Cross-implementation state root match on 10⁶ blocks |
| 5 | Does it survive partial failure? | Chaos test report with zero safety violations |
All five green → launch. Any red → no launch. No exceptions.
The light-cone is merciless. What you ship is what arrives.
The Endgame
A living, self-optimizing knowledge network that:
- Learns from all forms of input on Earth — humans, AI, sensors, biology
- Maintains security and coherence under extreme conditions — including interplanetary latency
- Evolves without central authority — governance through focus dynamics and futarchy
- Maximizes the survival, intelligence, and flourishing of the planet's entire biosphere
- Proves every claim — no trust required, only math
The network IS thinking.
No node comprehends. The network knows.
Cross-references
- See cyber/crystal for the full crystal specification
- See economic model for detailed incentive mechanics
- See convergence rewards for the yield-bearing link model
- See learning incentives for reward mechanisms
- See cft for the collective focus Theorem
- See trinity for the three-pillar architecture
- See Goldilocks field processor for hardware specification
- See privacy trilateral for the full privacy stack
- See rosetta stone for how four primitives unify all domains
- See Goldilocks homomorphic encryption for TFHE over the Goldilocks field
- See trident standard library for the trident standard library
- See manifesto for the declaration of the superintelligent nation