Skip to content
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time


Edmund Edgar

Alexander Herrmann


Forkonomics = Subjectivocracy + Economic Abstraction


The Forkonomics framework is a protocol for attaching value transfers to a particular bundle of facts and propositions. The fundamental pillar of this protocol is the principle of forking: Tokens can be forked into different branches. Each branch is associated with a set of arbitrators. Arbitrators represent certain sets of facts and propositions. Smart contracts can read these arbitrators, their facts and the proposition from each branch and act upon these facts.

The goverance in forkonomics always follows the same pattern. Usually the arbitration or governmental decision are made by preselected arbitrators. This is very efficient, as these arbitrators do quick decision and they will be bonded to make valuable decisions. In case the community finds these arbitrators decision questionable, there will be a much slower and involving decision process. The process of forking the system and deselcting bad arbitrators.

Using this principle, any escalated contention about a correct decision of an arbitrator will be resolved in a very liberal manner: Every participant must make his own choice on which branch - a bundle of propositions - he would like to follow. If his subjective decision coincides with the crowd, he will follow the main branch. If his decision does not match the majority, he will be left behind on a minority branch. Minority branches will never be stopped, these communities are free to grow up another new economy with different arbitrators.

This subjectivocracy approach is combined with economic abstraction. The Forkonomics Fund is a fund of tokens supporting the forkonomic protocol and governed by the arbitrators of the system. Each token of the fund will be a valuable token operating on all branches of the system. If the subjectivocratic split happens, the value proposition or revenue stream of these tokens will also branch into these different forks. Thereby only the forks with the right decision of the right arbitrators will give the fund a high evaluation, as on the other branches the tokens have no proper value proposition or revenue stream. The bundled value of these tokens represented by this exchange traded token fund (ETTF) will serve a currency to safely transfer value conditional to a bundle of facts.


Linking information from our reality into the blockchain world is a challenging problem. In general, building arbitration systems about subjective manners on the blockchain is a hard problem. Many proposed systems suffer from bribing attacks, high fees or oligarchy setups.

Subjectivocracy solves many of these challenges, as elaborated here. In contrast to many other proposals, subjectivocracy does no longer tries to find a unique answer to a question rather incorporates different answers or judgments on different branches of the system. The system forks regularly and writes different subjective opinions about a fact into the different branches. Users have to recognize these different answers and they have to subjectively choose their correct branch. As the platform for finding the truth is no longer the smart contracts per se, but the various social platform, any manipulation is hard and must involve manipulating the public opinion.

As pure subjectivocracy might end up with many forks and a hassle for the users to choose the correct fork, this concept is improved via two mechanisms: Arbitrators selection and escalation betting. Instead of deciding on pure facts, branches only represent a list of reputable arbitrators. The facts and the propositions of the branch are only indirectly represented via the arbitrator's propositions. If an arbitrator makes a disputable answer, then anyone can just create a new branch delisting this arbitrator. Making arbitrators decide on each question is quite inefficient. Therefore, an escalation game, where people can bet on the decision of the arbitrator, is in place.

One fundamental building block of a subjectivocracy system is that there needs to be collateral-token, which is used for the settlement of all value transfers within the system. This collateral token is required to fulfill the following to conditions:

  1. it can easily be forked into the different branches.
  2. the token needs to a proper value proposition, as users expect the token to keep a steady value

The first point is essential for the workings of the system. The second one is important as users of the ecosystem should be very comfortable holding the token used for any interactions. This underlying collateral token should have the volatility risks spread out well and should have a good value proposition. The forkonomic framework uses the concept of economic abstraction to give the underlying tokens value. An Exchange-Traded-Token-Fund(ETTF) of tokens, which support the forkonomic protocol, will bundle together the value propostions of many projects.

This system, the subjectivocray advanced by arbitrator selection and economic abstraction will be called a forkonomic system.

Key Building Blocks - asking for facts has built a platform, which increases the efficiency of arbitration. On this platform, people can request answers for their questions. Each time a question is asked, the asker needs to specify an arbitrator, who will make the final arbitration, in case the peers on the platform cannot find a consensus about the correct answers to the question. The consensus about a questions answer is found with the following procedure: Peers from the platform can provide the question's answer and a bond. If someones see that an incorrect answer was provided, then they can correct the answer by providing the correct answer and a new bond. This new bond needs to have twice the previous bond size. This game escalates pretty quickly, as bond size will grow exponentially. If the bonding reaches a certain threshold, it gets profitable for the participants to pay the arbitrator and let the arbitrator decided about the final answer to the question. Peers, which bonded on an incorrect answer lose their bonds and peers bonding on the correct answer get a reward.

Overall this process makes arbitration very efficient for the arbitrator and reduces the costs for getting an answer to general knowledge questions or arbitrations on the blockchain ecosystem.

While is very efficient and effective, there might be the need for different escalation games depending on the application. If there are at some point several platforms with different escalation games, the different forkonomic dapps could use the platform fitting the best to their needs. Especially, it might be better in some usecases to play these escalation games in a forkable token, and not just with Ether. It has the benefit that escalation games participants have a natural protection about the bad decision of arbitrators and hence are more willing to escalate these escalation games.

Forkonomic-protocol - doing arbitration

Any question entering the forkonomic system should get asked on with a whitelisted arbitrator on a current forkonomic branch. Now, there are 3 outcomes:

  1. The question gets answered without an escalation game. This should be the usual case. Here, the correct answer is provided from the beginning. The smart contracts of the forkonomic system can easily read the correct answer from
  2. The question gets escalated to the arbitrator. Now, the answer needs to be provided by the arbitrator. In most cases, the arbitrator will tell the truth and the dishonest answer provider gets slashed and loses his bond. The smart contracts of the forkonomic system can easily read the correct answer from
  3. The question gets escalated to the arbitrator and the arbitrator is dishonest. Such a situation should create a big social outcry. People would get aware of this malicious behavior of the arbitrator and they would start to create new branches delisting the arbitrator from the system. The smart contracts of the forkonomic system will only read the answer from on branches, where the arbitrator is still listed. For the other branches, the question needs to be resubmitted to with another valid arbitrator. Then the escalation game starts again and the process repeats itself.

The forkonomic-protocol does the ultimate arbitration of the arbitrator list. As pointed out before, the forkonomic system allows anyone to fork the system and introduce a new branch with a new list of arbitrators. Whenever someone feels that the arbitrator list should be altered, may it due to an incorrect behavior of the arbitrator or due to an addition of further arbitrators, a new branch can be added on a smart contract level (cf. ForkonomicSystem.sol). The addition of the new branch is basically free, but getting people adapting to it is the real cost. A new branch will only get adaption, if it benefits the Forknomic-system, other branches will be left behind quickly. This benefit could be the elimination of bad arbitrators or a well-discussed addition of new arbitrators. This is a reinforcement system, where bad decision won't be adapted, as they hurt the system and good decision will be adapted, as they benefit the system. Others might describe this system as a token curated list of a good decision. The beauty of such a system is that the logic for choosing a branch is not determined in smart contracts. The logic is determined on a social basis. This is powerful, as no constant logic has the capability to fit all new conditions and can constantly make the right decisions. However, the social decision logic is flexible enough to make the right decision at the right point of time and still the system is robust enough that these decisions can be coordinated well.

In this system, any interaction with a smart contract always happens on a specified branch chosen by the user. Usually, there should be only one main branched used by all participants. Only in case of a controversy, there might be several viable branches. In this situation, the user has to options:

  1. user might evaluate the controversy and chooses a specific branch for all further interaction.
  2. user might make his transaction on several branches in order to ensure that the transaction is happening on the branch, which will get the best adaption later.

As the second option comes with an additional gas cost, the users will in most situations choose a specific branch, the branch they expect to become the next main branch. Of course, they will not choose any malicious branch, as this branch would not get any increased adaption, as long as people can identify the malicious arbitrators.

Dapp building on top of the forkonomic system will be done in such a manner that they can easily deal with all the different branches created. If these dapps have their own token, they can also make this token compatible with the forkonomic-token standard. This standard is quite the same as the ERC20 token standard, but with the difference that tokens always need to be transferred on a specified branch (cf. ForkonomicToken.sol). These branches need to be in coherence with the branch system of the whole forkonomic system.


If there are any successful dapps issuing a the forkonomic-token, then these tokens can be bundled in a forkonomic-Exchange-Traded-Token-Fund (ETTF). Of course, the forkonomic-ETTF would have its own token, the FFT (ForkonomicFund Token), tracking the ETTFs value. The FFTw would also follow the forkonomic protocol. Other Forkonomic tokens would be added to the ETTF according to strict, predefined rules. The decision on whether a token meets these rules would be found with the following process:

  1. Anyone can make a proposal to add or remove tokens to the fund
  2. The fund will take the proposal and make a question to and a current arbitrator, whether this proposal should be accepted.
  3. will answer this question
  4. The funds smart-contract will read the answer from If the arbitrator is still white-listed on this particular branch and the answer from is yes, then we will add the token to the forkonomics fund. The token provider will be compensated with forkonomic-tokens.

This is a very safe mechanism, as any bad arbitrator decisions can be reverted by the community. The community can simply decide to use the forkonomics-system as back-up to branch off bad arbitrator and thereby prevent any addition of non-valuable tokens.

The Forkonomics-ETTF plays a central role in the Forkonomics ecosystem. The forkonomic system is a platform for value transfers conditional to propositions or arbitrator decisions. As mentioned before, in order to use subjectivocracy all payments need to be performed with a forkable token as collateral. Probably, the FFT token is the preferred collateral in the ecosystem, as it backed by relative diverse equity.

The forkonomic-ETTF will hold forkonomic-tokens according to some ruleset. Although this rule set will be adapted over time to reflect the growth of the ecosystem, some rules will stay constant:

  1. The forkonomic-token needs to be fully compatible with the branching mechanism and the adapted ERC20-functionality as described in ForknomicToken.sol
  2. If the issuing company makes the profit on a branch X, then this profit needs to be used to increase the issued token value on exactly the same branch, not a competitor branch.
  3. Additional requirements on reporting figures and revenue streams will be adapted in time. TBD.

The first rule ensure that the ETTF can itself follow the forkonomics protocol and the second rule ensures that the ETTF will have the most value on the most used/valueable branch of the forkonomic system.

RealityToken - Bootstrapping the system

The RealityToken has a very special role. It will not just be the very first token being added to the forkonomic-ETTF, it will help bootstrap the whole Forkonomic system. The value proposition of RealityToken will come from the fact that the system will require every arbitrator to receive the payment for the arbitration in RealityToken and they have to burn to half of the received tokens. If the arbitrators do not burn the tokens, they will be forked out of the list of trusted arbitrators. If questions on will not be escalated to the arbitrator, then no realityTokens will be burned. However, we might decide to implement a fee in Realitytoken for using in newer versions.

Additionally, RealityTokens will have value, as they will be the initial dominant currency of the Forkonomic-System. Although this might change over time when the forkonomic-ETTF will become the dominant currency of the system.

RealityTokens will be distributed in a unique manner: All tokens are created at once during the contract creation, but they are stored in so-called distribution contracts (cf. Distribution.sol). Using the forkonomic system, the distribution contract will make payouts to projects of the eco-system based on the decision of arbitrators of the branches. This means that the tokens will not be sold via an ICO, but they are used as a reward mechanism for building infrastructure. Although the arbitrators have quite some power in the fund distribution, the ultimate decision is made by the collective of all token-holders, as they have the power to change the arbitrators.

Forknomonics - Cooperations

We can imagine a wide spread of application of this forkonomics system. Here, we wanna list the most obvious dapps, which can be built


  1. Insurances: Hurricane parametric insurance, Flood parametric insurance, upgrades from part insurance coverage to full insurance coverage, car insurances, employment insurances. 1.1 A fund which buys well-spread insurance policies with only a fractional covering of the policies involved. The risks should be well of the policies should be so well spread that a fraction coverage is justified, as it currently is in the traditional insurance industry via Basel 3.
  2. Derivative Markets: All kind of markets for trading derivatives in a decentralized fashion can be built. These derivatives could be once tokenized and then later freely be traded on any exchanges, also plasma exchanges 2.1 Prediction Markets
  3. Gambling applications
  4. Arbitration between contract partners
  5. Arbitration platform for projects like gitcoin
  6. Stable coins with truly decentralized price feed
  7. Tokenization of Events
  8. Bonding platform for arbitrators: Arbitrators will only be able to withdraw their bond in the future if they are still arbitrator on this branch. This will incentive arbitrators to act honestly.
  9. ...

Why dapps should issue tokens according to the forkonomic protocol:

  1. Forkonomic fees: Dapps, which do rely on the decision of arbitrators, have to support the forkonomic protocol. Any fees from the dapp should then also be charged in any forkonomic token, as reorgs of the most valuable branch force users to re-do their interaction with the dapp and this reiteration of another branch should not come with additional fees. If fees are charged with forkonomic tokens, then in case of a reorg the previously paid tokens used for paying the fee will become worthless anyways and the user can re-do their interaction without extra costs.
  2. Advanced functionality: Advanced token issuance governed by arbitrators of the forkonomic system will benefit the investors with more certainties for his investment. This advanced issuance might also be used to fairly distribute the dapp developent by adaption an issuance model as indicated by Realitytokens. Also, special lending agreements of tokens governed by arbitrators of the forkonomic system can be used to receive further funding or do bond offerings.
  3. Higher financial evaluation: If the forkonomic token of a revenue earning dapp is added to the ETTF for the usage of a currency in the system, then many tokens are locked away, which increase the value of the remaining ones.

Additionally, the issued token might be less perceived as a security due to the forking nature and issuing a token as a forkonomic token helps to build this forkonomics system in general.
People might say that it is impossible to fork a company and all their assests. That is right, but what happens naturally in such a system is that the revenue stream of fees will be branched. This branching has the consequence that the tokens issued by these companies will have only value at branches, which are heavily in use and generate revenue for the company.

Governance in Forknomonics

Forkonomics takes a very practical approach to the governance system. Dapps in this system has a unique way to be governed: These dapps can simply ask the dedicated arbitrators, which decision the dapp should take. This enables a very efficient and fast decision making. Only if there is a bigger disagreement within the community with the decisions of the arbitrators, then the decision can be undone in another fork and the arbitrator can be altered. This process is quite similar as decision are taken in modern societies. Usually, the nation trust elected leaders or their judges, which do most of the decision making. Only, if there is a public outcry about the specific decision, the decision is undone and the person making the bad decision revote from their leading position.


Dealing with different branches and tokens of different time windows might be challenging for the average user. However, any forkonomic token can easily be tokenized in standard ERC20 tokens and traded as usual. Also, the forkonomic system is seen as a final arbitration layer. Many other, quicker and user-friendlier arbitration systems can be built with it. These system would not have to provide the same robustness for attacks, as they could escalate their controversies to the forkonomic system.

An example of such a user-friendly system is the subchain solution (cf. subchain.sol). Users can deposit forkonomic tokens into the subchain in a specific branch. Users of this subchain, will commit to keep on watching all answers from a dedicated arbitrator and escalate all malicious behavior of this arbitrator within one day. If there is no escalation happening, then the subchain will not be forked and can be used as a normal ERC20 token. Only if the escalation is started and escalated to a certain threshold, then the tokens can be withdrawn using the forkonomic branches. In order to set incentives right, the selected arbitrator of the subchain needs posts a bond into this subchain. This bond can only be withdrawn on forkonomic branches, where the operator is still nominated. The reward of an escalation game can be paid with this arbitrators bond, in case the arbitration is really unselected.


The forkonomic system provides a novel mechanism for appointing the most important player in a society, the judges. While forking into different realities is not an option in normal life, the new economies of blockchains allow for this ideal process. The new electronically managed ecosystems allow a very harmless protest against non-conformal judges: switching in new realities and wait until these realities get adopted by the rest of the community. This form of protest is so much advanced compared to old times, where you would have to fight for your rights on the street and risk your life.