CPTOKEN TRANSPARENCY

A final question when discussing the science and engineering of developing a cryptocurrency is how to address transparency. Design decisions are not Boolean and ethereal, coming to developers in dreams and then suddenly becoming cannon. They are derived from experience, debate and lessons learned from earlier mistakes.

The challenge is that a totally transparent development process could influence discussion to become more theatrical than evidence based. Egos, attempts to win over a community, and fear of sounding stupid could force conversations to become sterile and counterproductive.

Furthermore, outsiders could attempt to co-opt the conversation in an effort to force their particular tangent to become the only relevant topic. Everyone has a sacred cow.

So how does one balance the need for a transparent development process, which is owed to the community that has entrusted progress to a set of core developers, with the need for freedom of expression without fear?

With CPTOKEN, we have decided to embrace a standards driven process with directed oversight. The community needs to know that the science and the code are well thought out, checked and actually solve the things that developers claim they do. To this end, peer review should completely satisfy the science component as it has been designed specifically for this purpose and has given us the modern world.

For code, this topic is a bit more opinionated. For CPTOKEN, we have elected to entrust the CPTOKEN Foundation to serve as a final auditor of IOHK’s work. In particular, they are entrusted with the following duties:

Regular review of the source code contained in the CPTOKEN Github to check for quality, test coverage, proper comments and completeness Review of all CPTOKEN documentation for correctness and usefulness Verifying the claims that the protocols produced by the scientists are fully implemented