Thank you for sharing this comprehensive standard. A few years back, I would have been all over a comprehensive ID-based system like this. But now that we have these powerful language models, I’m wondering if we still need static IDs.
Here’s my thinking:
- Static IDs feel like they box us in and create unnecessary central points of coordination
- ID spaces get messy real quick in distributed environments - we’ve all been there
- They can actually get in the way of understanding context and relationships naturally
I’ve started thinking about graphs more as how we look at data, not what the data actually is. Instead of trying to turn everything into a fixed graph structure, what if we just let graphs be this flexible lens we can apply when and where we need it?
Sure, for blockchain stuff, especially finance where you need those guaranteed outcomes, I get why you’d want something more rigid. Maybe for those cases we could lean on some shared, trusted AI models for figuring out what’s what. For example, if we have unstructured data and a model that consistently produces the same graph from that data with 99.999% accuracy, we could consider this a form of deterministic “resolution” - achieving the same goals but through AI rather than static IDs.
What if we tried something more flexible:
- Let graph structures pop up naturally based on context
- Use AI to figure out what’s connected to what through regular language
- Keep IDs just for those blockchain operations that absolutely need them
- Focus more on understanding relationships than storing them in a fixed way
We would like to adopt GRC-20 at some point, we are just figuring out how to do it. Curious what others think about this.