Show HN: TPA – 面向主权治理的零信任协议
1 分•作者: CuriousP•2 天前
我一直在研究治理模型，它将政治权力视为一个系统架构问题，而非道德问题。我发现了这个名为“权力问责理论”（TPA）的提议。
其核心思想是“透明度成比例”：你对他人的权力越大，你在公共角色中的隐私就越少。这本质上是将零信任方法应用于政府。
主要特点：
* 自动功能制裁：不是等待数年进行刑事审判，如果领导者未能解释财富差距或未记录的互动，他们将自动失去功能特权（投票权、获取公共资金的权利）。
* 不可侵犯的私人生活：严格禁止监控普通公民。“聚光灯”只追随权力。
* 不可变的机构记忆：每个决定都必须明确说明谁受益，谁付出代价，从而创建一个“外部性”的审计跟踪。
我对将其作为模块化协议（可能通过智能合约或去中心化账本）的技术可行性很感兴趣。像这样的系统有哪些潜在的“攻击向量”？
链接：[https://medium.com/@anonimo.politico2205/theory-of-power-accountability-tpa-b7bb0438f5cf](https://medium.com/@anonimo.politico2205/theory-of-power-accountability-tpa-b7bb0438f5cf)
查看原文
I’ve been researching governance models that treat political power not as a moral issue, but as a system architecture problem. I found this proposal called Theory of Power Accountability (TPA).<p>The core idea is "Proportionality of Transparency": the more power you exercise over others, the less privacy you have in your public role. It’s essentially a Zero-Trust approach applied to government.<p>Key features:<p>Automatic Functional Sanctions: Instead of waiting years for a criminal trial, if a leader fails to explain a wealth gap or an unrecorded interaction, they automatically lose functional prerogatives (voting rights, access to public funds).<p>Inviolable Private Life: It strictly forbids monitoring common citizens. The "spotlight" only follows the power.<p>Immutable Institutional Memory: Every decision must explicitly state who benefits and who pays, creating an audit trail of "externalities."<p>I’m curious about the technical feasibility of implementing this as a modular protocol (perhaps via smart contracts or decentralized ledgers). What are the potential "attack vectors" on a system like this?<p>Link: <a href="https://medium.com/@anonimo.politico2205/theory-of-power-accountability-tpa-b7bb0438f5cf" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@anonimo.politico2205/theory-of-power-acc...</a>