"Eve" is a community platform for friction-less, control-less, decentralized, private, uncensorable, unstoppable, self-sovereign, invite-only closed communities
This is exactly the kind of infrastructure we need—decentralized, resilient, and designed for real trust, not control. Eve doesn’t eliminate risk through surveillance; it distributes responsibility through social incentives and mutual accountability. That’s a fundamentally stronger model.
Count me in—I’m excited to follow and support this as it evolves.
How does vouching for each other prevent intelligence or police informants from infiltrating the "community" to then create issues trying to draw community members into saying or agreeing to something that will later be used to prosecute them ?? We all have experienced situations where in heat of moment a friend or family member says something we know is not intended to be carried out, but an outsider might see it differently.
How often have we heard our buddy/relative say something like, "That guy needs to be horsewhipped" or similar "Kill the lot of them..." ?? Next someone agrees and so the police are now informed, by virtue of their informant gathering "evidence" of a CONSPIRACY. It becomes even more insidious because the first comment was made by their informant to pimp the resulting over-the-top comment and create a conspiracy where none existed.
Eve groups would have to have very strict rules about comments which defeats the purpose of the Eve platform.
I do not see this as a valid aid in bringing cohesion to a group, but your mileage may differ.
Also you can run systems and have a code of ethics and a code of respectful dialogue. It doesn’t defeat the purpose. The purpose is to create many systems and each one can have their own rules and codes. In fact, a good society - in real life or digital life - should have a code. Plenty of people are willing to live by a code in order to be part of a bigger system. Teams have codes. Businesses have codes. Nations have codes. And network states will also have codes.
As josh said, there is never a way to prevent that from happening outright, but I believe that the reputation system helps with that a bit. The moment someone invites an informant, or anyone else that the community doesn't want they can be kicked out, and the reputation of the inviter is affected as well as that of the invitee.
Eve's purpose isn't to replace human connections or traditional social filters, but to enhance them. No software can truthfully promise perfect security without human involvement. Any platform claiming to offer complete protection without requiring user action is simply not being honest about its limitations.
If a member starts proposing crazy stuff the est of the team simply leave the team and the team dies. The members in good standing with each other can taem up again or join other teams they know people in.
This is a good question. Maybe they will answer. For our systems it is easy. Mix IRL with URL. Also if you use collective intelligence like we want to do, infiltrators cannot sway the crowd like that because the system is anonymous.
The bigger problem is first keeping ai and bots out of the system. The second problem is just having a system where one or even many infiltrators cannot gain control of the system because it is decentralized.
This is one way we proposed it. The founders of Eve might have another way.
It is impossible to keep out all infiltrators in a system. But it is possible to use vouching to hamper them. And anonymous decentralized collective intelligence problem solving systems to keep better ideas rising to the top.
Wilhelm Reich got imprisoned for an employee(probably an informant) selling a product across state lines; he then died in prison a couple years later.
In my mind there cannot be a one size fits all solution to infiltration, especially if you're dealing with bad actors with resources and a mission. Also governments using "informants" is really it's own ridiculous excuse for all kinds of abuse; you're hiring a skilled liar who uses "knowledge of criminal" activity to buy their own freedom/privileges. That stupidity is convenience for a corrupt institution, and their are many situations that are absolutely criminal, and aren't easily or reasonable preventable. Sucks to be targeted by evil people.
A partial solution for some situations I'm thinking of would be passwords/invites through real life, and expiration dates on groups. The trust/reputation building is a cool idea, but like you say infiltration would eventually allow infiltrators to up each others reputations. Renewing trust at intervals/restarting the group might be a way to slow or prevent infiltration. If trust is built by buying products services from within your community, then at least your normal community will have no problem just using services and products they would have anyway, and all infiltrators will be at least be spending money in your community.
Really like the concept. See a couple of issues which other commenters have already raised. Pretty sure the folks at Arx are fully aware of those issues too. The nefarious actors infiltrating the system is certainly an issue. It would be impossible to stop even with the invite-only and vouchsafe elements already cited. Once a single infiltrator gets access to any CCN they can easily 'play nice' to gain reputation then invite more infiltrators until their proportion of members can sway the group. Once that happens the original members would have no choice but to abandon the CCN and start over. Problem is the loss of trust in the CCN technology itself. Likewise, as already pointed out, the technology itself does not possess moral or ethical agency. The human users of the technology give it moral and ethical agency. There is nothing to stop a criminal group from using a CCN to interact and expand their activities. Because the developers have no control of the CCN once created there is no way they can shut it down or stop it being used to criminal purposes. These are serious issues that need to be addressed with this concept and technology otherwise governments will act to shut it down before it gets off the ground. No government is going to like autonomous, sovereign CCN's they have no control over to begin with, so giving them legitimate grounds to ban or criminilize the technology must be avoided. Integration with swarm intelligence technology seems unlikely because of these flaws as well. Like the concept but the execution is key. Trust cannot be lost otherwise the technology will wither on the vine. I personally place some store in on-prem AI technology. Unfortunately, it is too expensive and inwieldy for personal application at the moment but it could provide potential solutions to digital sovereignty issues.
The problem you're bringing up with nefarious actors infiltrating a CCN is a valid one that I don't have a perfect solution for yet, but there may be technical ways to deter this.
For instance, a way to snapshot a CCN and create a new one from the snapshot may solve the infiltration problem, as once that happens the CCN can split into two, one with the good actors, and one with the good actors + nefarious actors.
Regarding not being able to stop criminal CCNs, that's true! But it's **not** a problem we can solve, without also giving ourselves the ability to stop good CCNs (or being forced to under duress), which would defeat the point of the software!
As for integration with swarm intelligence, well, let's say that there are some discussions :)
Thank you for replying to my comment Danny. I was just thinking out aloud really. I love the idea of Eve and the CCN’s. I hope you can find technical solutions to the nefarious actor issue but I suspect it might really have to come down to some kind of trust mechanism like the ones devised by the SOPS.
The sovereign nature of the CCN does possess the inherent flaw of being accessible by good and bad actors. I fully agree with you that one cannot have true sovereignty of the CCN without this potential flaw. The point I wished to emphasize was that governments will seize upon any flaw with which to ban anything they cannot control like CCN’s. Giving governments a tool to shut down CCN’s will neuter the who project very effectively.
My final point is please never underestimate the malicious and malevolent nature of government and their minions. They live for this kind of challenge and will never stop until they have either corrupted or destroyed their target. Success brings enemies. The greater the success the greater the enemies. I say all this in the sincerest hope you can overcome the myriad problems facing you and bring this wonderful innovation to fruition.
Your comments inspired an ancient memory: BBS (Bulletin Board Server). Nowadays telephone numbers are throwaways, even easier to set a temporary number to dial into. Just spit-ballin'...
I believe you have a very valid point about infiltration. Even if nothing harmful is being discussed, hacking - especially of sites/code claiming to be secure presents a challenge to defy it. From personal experience it is my view that anti-virus companies were (are?) the primary source of sabotage of their competitors (at the cost to the consumer).
The people that have control of our systems don’t have skin in the game. The people who are controlling the systems should be the people who have skin in the game.
Your generalization is not true. There is no evidence outside of circumstantial that a closed system with requirements to join the system would result in a bad system. Yes our current system that happened. But the design was a way to corrupt it that we are living in. We must build better systems that are hard to corrupt, and the decisions should be made by large groups of people using swarm intelligence systems. Right now we allow a representative to make decisions for us. If that person is corrupted the whole system is. Therefore we should assume the whole system is.
We need to build a new system. One that is hard to corrupt. Then migrate there. But yes, the price of admission is skin in the game, which means not everyone will be allowed in the group at first. We must lock out Wall Street, politicians, and the mainstream media noise. Then forgive each other for allowing this to happen. Then fix it.
This is sounds interesting. I know a handful of people working on similar things. How far is this organization along on creating this? What is the business model of Arx? Is it a for profit, non profit, co-op?
It sounds ideal. One issue I see, however, which is the basis for my essay at https://hammersthor.substack.com/p/alternative-comms-in-an-era-of-network, is what if the network goes down? Or what happens if, in order to log into your network (basically going online) you must first input your DIGITAL ID?
I think "Eve" could be a fantastic platform, and I like the premise, but to be truly free and open it might need a new backbone for communication that does not rely on the internet as it currently exists, as that may get locked down soon if Digital ID becomes a "requirement" to log on. A local mesh network could solve this with Meshtastic hardware or something similar, with local hubs that communicate with other hubs with higher-end laser communications. Sure, there could be issues with that, like governments prohibiting mesh networks or requiring a digital ID to use those frequencies, and then we would all be the equivalent of pirate radio operators. There are ways to handle this as well, and the beauty is that mesh hardware is extremely affordable, so the local hubs could have relays that don't attract enforcers directly to the hub operators. Just imagining the hurdles along with the benefits.
I'm a layperson, but a question this Eve platform brought to mind. Might a platform like this also be used by darker, nefarious entities who don't have good intentions? If so, how might that be managed...or not? I think it might be somewhat addressed by the "reputation" ratings, but I still can't get a grasp on it.
Indeed, like all powerful tools throughout human history, platforms like Eve embody the fundamental duality of technology—capable of both tremendous good and potential harm. Technology itself is morally neutral; it is human intention that imbues it with ethical dimension.
Email can be used to connect loved ones across continents or to deliver ransomware. Even the most basic technologies reflect this duality—a knife can prepare a nourishing meal or become a weapon.
At the end of the day, encryption is just math, anyone who understands it can build it; nefarious actors could build tools that are just as secure as Eve but targeted specifically for their nefarious actions (and chances are, they already have).
Anything can be used by criminals, computers themselves can be used by criminals, cars can be used by criminals, pens can be used by criminals; we're just giving everyone in the world a way to secure their communication and to bring back communities built on trust!
As Phil Zimmermann (creator of PGP) once said: "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."
I totally get it. Just wanted to pose the question for clarity. I'm all about free speech, especially for those that I disagree with which is why we need the First Amendment because we're ALL about free speech for those we agree with.
Thank you for the clarification. Interesting platform that you're building. I'll be interested to watch it's development. :-)
Sorry it is messed up and we have to upload from a backup. We have been working on the app and neglected the website and a few things need updating. Apologies
No worries. I understand the process at hand. Just wanted to share in case no one has mentioned it. All eyes on deck when launching a new platform. Godspeed.
This is exactly the kind of infrastructure we need—decentralized, resilient, and designed for real trust, not control. Eve doesn’t eliminate risk through surveillance; it distributes responsibility through social incentives and mutual accountability. That’s a fundamentally stronger model.
Count me in—I’m excited to follow and support this as it evolves.
I see a "problem...." with Eve.
How does vouching for each other prevent intelligence or police informants from infiltrating the "community" to then create issues trying to draw community members into saying or agreeing to something that will later be used to prosecute them ?? We all have experienced situations where in heat of moment a friend or family member says something we know is not intended to be carried out, but an outsider might see it differently.
How often have we heard our buddy/relative say something like, "That guy needs to be horsewhipped" or similar "Kill the lot of them..." ?? Next someone agrees and so the police are now informed, by virtue of their informant gathering "evidence" of a CONSPIRACY. It becomes even more insidious because the first comment was made by their informant to pimp the resulting over-the-top comment and create a conspiracy where none existed.
Eve groups would have to have very strict rules about comments which defeats the purpose of the Eve platform.
I do not see this as a valid aid in bringing cohesion to a group, but your mileage may differ.
Also you can run systems and have a code of ethics and a code of respectful dialogue. It doesn’t defeat the purpose. The purpose is to create many systems and each one can have their own rules and codes. In fact, a good society - in real life or digital life - should have a code. Plenty of people are willing to live by a code in order to be part of a bigger system. Teams have codes. Businesses have codes. Nations have codes. And network states will also have codes.
As josh said, there is never a way to prevent that from happening outright, but I believe that the reputation system helps with that a bit. The moment someone invites an informant, or anyone else that the community doesn't want they can be kicked out, and the reputation of the inviter is affected as well as that of the invitee.
Eve's purpose isn't to replace human connections or traditional social filters, but to enhance them. No software can truthfully promise perfect security without human involvement. Any platform claiming to offer complete protection without requiring user action is simply not being honest about its limitations.
But great answer
- DM (Arx)
Where is the Arx-team (how many people ???) developing/launching the EVE-platform based ??? ...
Right now we're only 2 people based in Chicago and Italy
- DM (Arx)
My sincere compliments, all the best, take care and stay safe !!!👍👍👍
Hopefully we'll read some good news about Eve's development via this site in the near future !!!
If a member starts proposing crazy stuff the est of the team simply leave the team and the team dies. The members in good standing with each other can taem up again or join other teams they know people in.
Or there can be decentralized ways to remove bad actors.
This is a good question. Maybe they will answer. For our systems it is easy. Mix IRL with URL. Also if you use collective intelligence like we want to do, infiltrators cannot sway the crowd like that because the system is anonymous.
The bigger problem is first keeping ai and bots out of the system. The second problem is just having a system where one or even many infiltrators cannot gain control of the system because it is decentralized.
This is one way we proposed it. The founders of Eve might have another way.
It is impossible to keep out all infiltrators in a system. But it is possible to use vouching to hamper them. And anonymous decentralized collective intelligence problem solving systems to keep better ideas rising to the top.
Like so
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/keep-ai-and-bots-out-of-our-systems?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
A system that cannot fail is not free.
Vigilance is the only solution, and failure in that respect is what leads to our current modern dystopia.
You can't be safe and free and also not work hard.
Wilhelm Reich got imprisoned for an employee(probably an informant) selling a product across state lines; he then died in prison a couple years later.
In my mind there cannot be a one size fits all solution to infiltration, especially if you're dealing with bad actors with resources and a mission. Also governments using "informants" is really it's own ridiculous excuse for all kinds of abuse; you're hiring a skilled liar who uses "knowledge of criminal" activity to buy their own freedom/privileges. That stupidity is convenience for a corrupt institution, and their are many situations that are absolutely criminal, and aren't easily or reasonable preventable. Sucks to be targeted by evil people.
A partial solution for some situations I'm thinking of would be passwords/invites through real life, and expiration dates on groups. The trust/reputation building is a cool idea, but like you say infiltration would eventually allow infiltrators to up each others reputations. Renewing trust at intervals/restarting the group might be a way to slow or prevent infiltration. If trust is built by buying products services from within your community, then at least your normal community will have no problem just using services and products they would have anyway, and all infiltrators will be at least be spending money in your community.
Really like the concept. See a couple of issues which other commenters have already raised. Pretty sure the folks at Arx are fully aware of those issues too. The nefarious actors infiltrating the system is certainly an issue. It would be impossible to stop even with the invite-only and vouchsafe elements already cited. Once a single infiltrator gets access to any CCN they can easily 'play nice' to gain reputation then invite more infiltrators until their proportion of members can sway the group. Once that happens the original members would have no choice but to abandon the CCN and start over. Problem is the loss of trust in the CCN technology itself. Likewise, as already pointed out, the technology itself does not possess moral or ethical agency. The human users of the technology give it moral and ethical agency. There is nothing to stop a criminal group from using a CCN to interact and expand their activities. Because the developers have no control of the CCN once created there is no way they can shut it down or stop it being used to criminal purposes. These are serious issues that need to be addressed with this concept and technology otherwise governments will act to shut it down before it gets off the ground. No government is going to like autonomous, sovereign CCN's they have no control over to begin with, so giving them legitimate grounds to ban or criminilize the technology must be avoided. Integration with swarm intelligence technology seems unlikely because of these flaws as well. Like the concept but the execution is key. Trust cannot be lost otherwise the technology will wither on the vine. I personally place some store in on-prem AI technology. Unfortunately, it is too expensive and inwieldy for personal application at the moment but it could provide potential solutions to digital sovereignty issues.
Thank you for your comment.
The problem you're bringing up with nefarious actors infiltrating a CCN is a valid one that I don't have a perfect solution for yet, but there may be technical ways to deter this.
For instance, a way to snapshot a CCN and create a new one from the snapshot may solve the infiltration problem, as once that happens the CCN can split into two, one with the good actors, and one with the good actors + nefarious actors.
Regarding not being able to stop criminal CCNs, that's true! But it's **not** a problem we can solve, without also giving ourselves the ability to stop good CCNs (or being forced to under duress), which would defeat the point of the software!
As for integration with swarm intelligence, well, let's say that there are some discussions :)
- DM (Arx)
Thank you for replying to my comment Danny. I was just thinking out aloud really. I love the idea of Eve and the CCN’s. I hope you can find technical solutions to the nefarious actor issue but I suspect it might really have to come down to some kind of trust mechanism like the ones devised by the SOPS.
The sovereign nature of the CCN does possess the inherent flaw of being accessible by good and bad actors. I fully agree with you that one cannot have true sovereignty of the CCN without this potential flaw. The point I wished to emphasize was that governments will seize upon any flaw with which to ban anything they cannot control like CCN’s. Giving governments a tool to shut down CCN’s will neuter the who project very effectively.
My final point is please never underestimate the malicious and malevolent nature of government and their minions. They live for this kind of challenge and will never stop until they have either corrupted or destroyed their target. Success brings enemies. The greater the success the greater the enemies. I say all this in the sincerest hope you can overcome the myriad problems facing you and bring this wonderful innovation to fruition.
Your comments inspired an ancient memory: BBS (Bulletin Board Server). Nowadays telephone numbers are throwaways, even easier to set a temporary number to dial into. Just spit-ballin'...
I believe you have a very valid point about infiltration. Even if nothing harmful is being discussed, hacking - especially of sites/code claiming to be secure presents a challenge to defy it. From personal experience it is my view that anti-virus companies were (are?) the primary source of sabotage of their competitors (at the cost to the consumer).
Aren't closed, invite-only systems based on exclusivity? Isn't exclusivity one of the fundamental roots of social dysfunction?
The people that have control of our systems don’t have skin in the game. The people who are controlling the systems should be the people who have skin in the game.
Your generalization is not true. There is no evidence outside of circumstantial that a closed system with requirements to join the system would result in a bad system. Yes our current system that happened. But the design was a way to corrupt it that we are living in. We must build better systems that are hard to corrupt, and the decisions should be made by large groups of people using swarm intelligence systems. Right now we allow a representative to make decisions for us. If that person is corrupted the whole system is. Therefore we should assume the whole system is.
We need to build a new system. One that is hard to corrupt. Then migrate there. But yes, the price of admission is skin in the game, which means not everyone will be allowed in the group at first. We must lock out Wall Street, politicians, and the mainstream media noise. Then forgive each other for allowing this to happen. Then fix it.
This is sounds interesting. I know a handful of people working on similar things. How far is this organization along on creating this? What is the business model of Arx? Is it a for profit, non profit, co-op?
It sounds ideal. One issue I see, however, which is the basis for my essay at https://hammersthor.substack.com/p/alternative-comms-in-an-era-of-network, is what if the network goes down? Or what happens if, in order to log into your network (basically going online) you must first input your DIGITAL ID?
I think "Eve" could be a fantastic platform, and I like the premise, but to be truly free and open it might need a new backbone for communication that does not rely on the internet as it currently exists, as that may get locked down soon if Digital ID becomes a "requirement" to log on. A local mesh network could solve this with Meshtastic hardware or something similar, with local hubs that communicate with other hubs with higher-end laser communications. Sure, there could be issues with that, like governments prohibiting mesh networks or requiring a digital ID to use those frequencies, and then we would all be the equivalent of pirate radio operators. There are ways to handle this as well, and the beauty is that mesh hardware is extremely affordable, so the local hubs could have relays that don't attract enforcers directly to the hub operators. Just imagining the hurdles along with the benefits.
I'm a layperson, but a question this Eve platform brought to mind. Might a platform like this also be used by darker, nefarious entities who don't have good intentions? If so, how might that be managed...or not? I think it might be somewhat addressed by the "reputation" ratings, but I still can't get a grasp on it.
Indeed, like all powerful tools throughout human history, platforms like Eve embody the fundamental duality of technology—capable of both tremendous good and potential harm. Technology itself is morally neutral; it is human intention that imbues it with ethical dimension.
Email can be used to connect loved ones across continents or to deliver ransomware. Even the most basic technologies reflect this duality—a knife can prepare a nourishing meal or become a weapon.
At the end of the day, encryption is just math, anyone who understands it can build it; nefarious actors could build tools that are just as secure as Eve but targeted specifically for their nefarious actions (and chances are, they already have).
Anything can be used by criminals, computers themselves can be used by criminals, cars can be used by criminals, pens can be used by criminals; we're just giving everyone in the world a way to secure their communication and to bring back communities built on trust!
As Phil Zimmermann (creator of PGP) once said: "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."
- DM (Arx)
I totally get it. Just wanted to pose the question for clarity. I'm all about free speech, especially for those that I disagree with which is why we need the First Amendment because we're ALL about free speech for those we agree with.
Thank you for the clarification. Interesting platform that you're building. I'll be interested to watch it's development. :-)
I tried to sign up for the newsletter at swarmacademy.ai but unfortunately it wouldn't process.
Sorry it is messed up and we have to upload from a backup. We have been working on the app and neglected the website and a few things need updating. Apologies
No worries. I understand the process at hand. Just wanted to share in case no one has mentioned it. All eyes on deck when launching a new platform. Godspeed.