# Integrating Wisdom into Protocol Design --- ## Introduction Ancestral knowledge systems emphasize interconnectedness, community sovereignty, and long-term stewardship. As we design decentralized protocols (e.g., funding mechanisms), these principles can address gaps in purely technocratic systems. This note explores how Indigenous practices from the Māori, Amazonian communities, and Southeast Asia offer models for **localized, community-driven governance**, with a case study on adapting Ethereum’s "Deep Funding" through ancestral wisdom. --- ## Cultural Wisdom and Real-World Examples ### 1. **Māori (Aotearoa/New Zealand): Mauri and Relational Governance** The Māori concept of **mauri** (life force) underpins decision-making frameworks that balance ecological, social, and economic well-being. For example: - **The Mauri Model**: Developed by Dr. Kepa Morgan, this framework evaluates projects based on their impact on the mauri of land, water, and communities. It was applied in the Waitangi Tribunal’s remediation of polluted harbors, prioritizing long-term vitality over short-term profit.^1 - **Whakapapa**: Genealogical networks map interdependence between humans, ecosystems, and ancestors. This mirrors "dependency graphs" but emphasizes reciprocal relationships over transactional links. **Design Insight**: Funding protocols could weight nodes not just by code dependencies but by *relational impacts* (e.g., how a project nourishes community mauri). --- ### 2. **Indigenous Amazonian Communities: Ancestral Memory and Land** Amazonian societies, like the Yanomami and Kichwa, encode ecological knowledge through oral histories and ritual practices: - **Yanomami *Xapiri* Spirits**: Shamans communicate with forest spirits to guide hunting and planting cycles, ensuring sustainability. As Davi Kopenawa writes, “The sky will fall if we forget the ground.”^2 - **Kichwa *Sumak Kawsay***: This “good living” philosophy governs land use, requiring decisions to benefit seven generations forward. The Sarayaku community’s *Kawsak Sacha* (“Living Forest”) proposal legally recognizes forests as sovereign beings.^3 **Design Insight**: Local funding juries could require applicants to demonstrate alignment with intergenerational stewardship, akin to Sarayaku’s biocultural protocols. --- ### 3. **Philippines (Southeast Asia): Communal Sovereignty** - **Ifugao Rice Terraces**: Maintained for 2,000 years through collective *bayanihan* (mutual aid). The *tongtong* system resolves disputes via elder-led councils, ensuring equitable resource distribution.^4 - **Subanen *Lapat***: A rotating governance system where communities declare forest zones “rested” to regenerate, enforced through collective memory.^5 **Design Insight**: Funding distribution could mirror *tongtong*, using localized juries to allocate resources based on community-defined priorities rather than global metrics. --- ## Case Study: Deep Funding and Its Limits Ethereum’s **Deep Funding** uses dependency graphs and AI models to allocate grants. While innovative, it risks centralization and undervaluing non-technical impacts (e.g., cultural preservation). **Weaknesses**: - Dependency graphs focus on code, not community health. - Global juries may overlook hyperlocal needs. --- ## Proposal: Local Deep Funding Adapt Deep Funding by integrating Indigenous governance models: 1. **Relational Dependency Graphs** - Map projects based on *whakapapa*-style connections (e.g., mentorship networks, cultural revitalization). 2. **Community Juries with Ancestral Protocols** - Train juries using Indigenous consensus models (e.g., Yanomami shamanic councils, Ifugao *tongtong*). - **Khipu Labs in Peru**: Revived Inca *khipu* (knotted cords) for decentralized voting, blending analog tradition with blockchain.^6 3. **Intergenerational Accountability** - Allocate a portion of funds to “future generations” nodes, managed by custodians like Māori *kaitiaki* (guardians). --- ## Conclusion Ancestral intelligence offers proven systems for equitable, sustainable governance. By designing protocols that honor **relationality**, **local sovereignty**, and **long-term care**, we can create funding mechanisms that resist extraction and foster resilience. --- ## Footnotes 1. Morgan, K. (2010). *The Mauri Model: A Framework for Decision-Making*. [Link](https://www.waikato.ac.nz). 2. Kopenawa, D., & Albert, B. (2013). *The Falling Sky: Words of a Yanomami Shaman*. Harvard University Press. 3. Sarayaku’s Kawsak Sacha Proposal. (2018). [Link](https://livingforests.org). 4. UNESCO. (1995). *Ifugao Rice Terraces*. [Link](https://whc.unesco.org). 5. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. (2020). *Subanen Lapat System*. [Link](https://pids.gov.ph). 6. Gutiérrez, S. (2021). *Decolonizing Data with Khipu*. MIT Technology Review. ---