Context Observatory (R&D): Capturing Meaning Movement Onchain — What is the Minimum Safe UX Boundary?

Ethereum Magicians

Hi Magicians, This is a small R&D thread (separate from my AA / SmartAccount work). I’m exploring a UX-oriented hypothesis: Future “liquidity” may increasingly manifest not only as price, but as the movement of meaning — i.e., contextual commitments that people reference and aggregate over time. I’m prototyping an onchain “instrument” (not a finished DApp) where users can: commit “contexts” (hash + URI), commit structured “declarations” as canonical keccak256 hashes, aggregate them into epochs (Merkle root finalization by an author), and redeem via Merkle proofs to mint a commemorative NFT. Repo / R&D doc: GitHub - cancan007/LCG_contracts (see README_RND.md) Visual lens (Time / Space / Empathy depth) — the conceptual model behind the experiment: (Optional additional diagram: direct vs indirect background alignment) What I’m not trying to do (to keep scope tight) Not proposing an identity / reputation scoring system. Not trying to define a universal “value metric”. Not claiming onchain meaning should be globally ranked by the protocol. The question (feedback I’m specifically looking for) If we treat these as UX primitives (timestamped commitments + later aggregation), what is the minimum acceptable anti-spam / abuse-control boundary you’d require? For example, which baseline would you consider reasonable: fee-only (natural cost), rate-limits, stake / deposit with slashing, allowlist / attesters, offchain moderation for visibility + onchain neutrality, something else? If you’ve seen prior art (EIPs / existing protocols) that tried similar “context / meaning / declaration” primitives, pointers would be hugely appreciated. Thanks! 1 post - 1 participant Read full topic