I often think about solutions, ideas, and new products to offer. And I don’t believe a truly parallel economy can ever be “complete” unless it can provide the full spectrum of products and services that the fiat economy offers.
So the question is this: we need to design systems—structures, protocols, and institutions—that can offer things like insurance, credit, loans, and other financial instruments in a peer-to-peer setting, privacy-preserving (no traditional KYC), while still allowing meaningful accounting for both the client and the provider.
The building blocks already exist: contract automation, mediation, even bonds and tokenized debt. But the hard problems remain brutally human in nature: one party disappears, identities can be impersonated, and fraud becomes an ever-present shadow.
If you strip it down, the challenge is not “how do we write the contract?”—it’s “how do we bind the contract to a persistent, accountable agent without recreating the surveillance architecture of the fiat world?”
Because finance is not just math. Finance is coordinated trust across time.
And time is where everything breaks:
Insurance is trust that a promise will be honored after uncertainty becomes reality.
Lending is trust that value borrowed today will be returned tomorrow.
Bonds are trust that institutions won’t dissolve in the gap between issuance and maturity.
In the fiat system, that binding force is ultimately coercive enforceability: the state, courts, and the monopoly on legitimate violence. In a parallel economy, we’re trying to replace that with cryptography, incentives, and social mechanisms—and that’s a profound shift: from enforcement to alignment.
So the core research space becomes something like this:
1) Identity without surveillance
Not “who are you in real life,” but “are you the same accountable entity over time?”
This leads to ideas like decentralized identity, pseudonymous persistence, attestations, proof-of-personhood, and privacy-preserving credentials. But it’s not enough to be private—you must be Sybil-resistant (one person can’t cheaply become a thousand identities) while still respecting human dignity and anonymity where needed.
2) Accountability without KYC
Accounting isn’t just record-keeping; it’s memory. A system that cannot remember behavior cannot price risk.
So you need reputational memory that can’t be trivially reset—yet also doesn’t become an unerasable social prison. That raises deep questions:
Should reputation be transferable?
Should it be redeemable?
Should forgiveness exist in a financial identity system, and under what conditions?
3) Fraud as an incentive design problem
Fraud is rarely a “security bug.” It’s often an economic exploit.
Any P2P financial primitive invites adversaries to search for the cheapest way to extract value. That means you must design for:
adverse selection (only the riskiest borrowers want undercollateralized loans),
moral hazard (insurance can incentivize reckless behavior),
oracle manipulation (truth becomes a battleground),
collusion (small groups exploiting large pools),
griefing (attacks that are profitable only because they impose costs on others).
4) Disappearance and the problem of exit
“Someone disappears” sounds like a logistics issue, but it’s metaphysical: in a permissionless system, exit is always possible.
So you’re forced to engineer consequences that survive disappearance:
collateral models,
escrow and staged releases,
time-locks,
slashing and staking,
shared risk pools,
and dispute resolution that has teeth.
But even here, the deepest question is: what does enforcement mean when the system can’t physically compel anyone?
You end up replacing force with economic gravity: make it so that disappearing is expensive, unattractive, and reputation-destroying.
5) The boundary between privacy and legitimacy
A parallel economy can’t ignore reality: legal systems exist, and many activities are regulated for reasons ranging from consumer protection to systemic stability.
So the “no KYC” ambition has to be framed carefully: not as evasion, but as privacy-preserving compliance where possible—proving properties (solvency, uniqueness, creditworthiness thresholds) without revealing full identity. The mature version of this idea is: “show what must be shown, conceal what should remain private.”
And then there’s the philosophical layer—the part that makes this “extremely deep”:
What you are really building is not just a set of products, but an alternative theory of the social contract.
Fiat finance is backed by centralized authority. A parallel economy must be backed by:
credible neutrality,
transparency where needed,
privacy where deserved,
and incentives that create long-term cooperative behavior.
In other words: you’re trying to engineer trust without rulers—but also without naively assuming humans are angels.
So the true problem statement could be rewritten like this:
How can we create financial promises that remain credible across time, in a world where identities are fluid, enforcement is voluntary, and adversaries are rational?
Tip AgoristShop