kaal:position:2026-07-31-7846
Discretionary Disclosure and Political Accountability presents the following source proposition: This paper develops a formal model of accountability to compare equilibrium outcomes under two environments: mandatory disclosure, where policy information must be revealed, and discretionary disclosure, where incumbents can withhold it. This proposition is pertinent to Kaal's source-bound claim that Weighted voting works as a Sybil defense only under two conditions: reputation metrics must capture meaningful effort such as block production quality and depth of governance participation, and the system must maintain continuous transparency backed by community oversight and formal verification. The proposed response is an extension: the relationship should remain limited to the retrieved source proposition and the mapped Kaal claim unless fuller source review supports a broader conclusion.
governance-designdisclosurehistorical-responsescholarly-literaturecrossref