EXFBased on trust protocol...
EXFWe explained that the main claim of Bitcoin is to be able to send money between peers without any central authority, but although it can theoretically do this, it cannot be done practically due to the reasons we have mentioned. The question is; So how will EXF do this?
First of all, let me state this. EXF; it is based on some of the technologies used by bitcoin. For example, it is based on a certain part of blockchain technology and developed its own technology. In this respect, we can say that EXF is a "community based cryptocurrency based on the trust protocol". What is the trust protocol? What is community-based? Let's explain these.
As we said in our previous statements, the money of the states is actually a quantitative reflection of the trust placed in them. In other words, the more trust there is in a state authority, the more valuable its money is. We have already stated that such currencies are called fiat money. The quick question can be asked. Even if its economy and other parameters are bad, is this so? Of course no. Its economy is trouble-free and its permanent state creates trust.
We mentioned that in Bitcoin, miners have virtual ledgers (blockchain) and before a money transfer, the miners tell the information about those who want to transfer money by looking at these virtual ledgers. The most basic assumption here is that “all miners have the same reliability”.
The situation of a miner who has been trading in the system for a long time and a miner who has been involved in the system a short time ago are equal in terms of trust. In fact, in real life, the issue of trust does not work this way. Is our trust or distrust of a person we just met the same for us as someone we have known for a long time and perhaps tested on various issues and found to be reliable or unreliable? Of course no. EXF is basically based on this trust protocol. There are differences between those who have been in the system for a long time and those who have just joined the system in terms of the system's trust in them. The operation of the trust protocol will be explained in detail later. To put it in a single sentence, the trust protocol is a protocol based on a “hard to get, time-consuming and easy to lose” structure, just like in real life.
If it is community-based, it can be explained as follows. Owners of EXF wallets (in short, wallets) in the system review each other as a result of their transactions. These reviews form the basis of their further actions. They also decide whether or not to trade with them in other wallets based on these reviews. In addition, if wallets have used intermediary or intermediaries, they also review the intermediary or intermediaries. Reviews are based on a five-star scoring system.
The most basic principle for wallets to review each other is that the wallets have a communication within the EXF system. What will occur as a result of communications outside the EXF system cannot be review within the EXF system. However, wallets that play the role of resolving disputes between two wallets cannot be evaluated by the wallets that are parties to the dispute. Wallets that play the role of resolving disputes such as mediators and decision makers are reviewed by the wallets to be selected by the EXF system according to the trust protocol as a result of their transactions. As a result of these reviews, badges are given to the wallets and published for all to see. Intermediaries, local regulators, local auditors, representatives, mediators and decision makers are also essential parts of this community, all of which will be explained in detail.
Now let's ask and answer this basic question again. How will EXF make the transfer that can't be done practically between peers by Bitcoin? We just said that EXF takes a certain part of the underlying blockchain mechanism laid out by bitcoin as its starting point. However, the EXF blockchain mechanism is a new technology developed by itself. Defines wallets that have the role of “Intermediary” within the EXF blockchain.
These intermediaries ensure that money transfers between two wallets are seamless. With your EXF wallet, you can transfer your money to another wallet without any intermediaries. The EXF blockchain structure is similar to the bitcoin blockchain structure; any transaction transferred to the block cannot be undone. The block structure is immutable. However, in EXF, when the transaction will be transferred to the block can be determined by the intermediaries. In other words, once a transaction is completed and transferred to the block, that transaction cannot be reversed. If you send money to another wallet without using any middleman and this transfer is recorded in the block, there is no way to get your transfer back. Except, of course, that the wallet you transferred the money to voluntarily refund to you.
So how do intermediaries make this transaction secure? Intermediaries can only control whether the transaction is transferred to the block structure. In other words, if you have used an intermediary or intermediaries in a money transfer transaction, it is now under the control and responsibility of the intermediary or intermediaries whether or not your transaction will be transferred to the block. If the intermediary approves, the transaction is transferred to the block and can no longer be reversed, or if the intermediary does not approve, the transaction is not transferred to the block and is no longer valid. If you are using multiple intermediaries for your transaction, all intermediaries must approve the transaction for the transaction to be valid and transferred to the block. If one of the intermediaries does not approve the transaction, the transaction is invalid and will not be transferred to the block. The intermediary or intermediaries cannot take any action other than to approve or reject a transaction. It cannot ensure that money is transferred to a different wallet or wallets. They simply approve or reject the transaction.
This question has come to your mind. So who are these intermediaries? In fact, anyone can be an intermediary. Let's explain through an example. Alice and Bob be people who don't know each other at all and have met online. Alice wants to buy EXF and Bob wants to sell EXF. There is no environment of trust since there was no acquaintance before. However, Alice and Bob have a mutual friend, Charlie, whom they trust very much. In this case, Bob identifies Charlie as the intermediary and sends EXF to Alice. Seeing that the EXF has been sent, Alice then pays Bob. Learning that transactions have been made from both, Charlie confirms the transaction and ensures that the transaction is transferred to the block.
If Alice and Bob had identified Olivia as the intermediary along with Charlie, that is, if both Charlie and Olivia were the intermediary for this transaction, then both Charlie and Olivia would have to approve the transaction for the transaction to be transferred to the block. If Charlie approves the transaction and Olivia rejects it, the transaction will not be valid and will be canceled by the system. Both Charlie and Olivia must approve the transaction for the transaction to be approved. In other words, if more than one intermediary is used, all intermediary must approve the transaction in order for the transaction to be transferred to the block. Otherwise, the transaction is not transferred to the block and is not a valid transaction.
What if Alice and Bob don't have a mutually trusted friend named Charlie. Where will they find an intermediary in this situation? In this case, they can trade by choosing a intermediary approved by the EXF system (local regulators). So the intermediary; Alice and Bob may have mutually trusted acquaintances, as well as a intermediary whose identity and other information has been approved by the EXF system (by local regulators) and whose previous transaction has been reviewed. In addition, corporate wallets can also act as intermediary. In this case, all corporate data and access information of these users are open and accessible to all users.
After the transaction, Alice and Bob will be able to review each other, as well as the people and institutions they use as intermediaries. Thus, in the next transactions for the EXF community, those who want to trade with Alice and Bob will decide whether to trade by reading the reviews about them. Just like in states, trust and reputation; will continue to be an indispensable element for this community.
While talking about why Bitcoin could not fulfill its claim, we mentioned that it is a speculative currency and cannot be used as a medium of exchange for goods and services as it is. The fact that its supply is constant is also a factor for the continuous increase in its value, but the fact that it is not tied to a natural value is also a factor in the high rate of speculation and value change. So how is the situation in EXF?
1 EXF is equal to 1 EAU at the time of its introduction. 1 EAU is equal to 1gr of gold. EXF is the only medium of exchange in the system. Values and assets other than EXF; are physical values. EAU is one of these values. The EAU is the digital gold reserve in the system and the value of 1 EAU is always 1gr gold.
This is what it means. How much 1gr gold is sold in the markets today, the value of 1 EAU is also. As the gold price in the markets changes, the value of the EAU will change accordingly and will be equal to the value of 1gr gold.
1 EXF is equal to 1,000,000 SXF. So the subunit of EXF is SXF. EXF has been put into circulation in the amount of 2,500,000,000,000 by the EXF wallet transferred to the block by the wallet transferred to the block by the Genesis wallet (GNSW) and can be transferred securely through the application. It does not need any external crypto exchange to transfer EXF securely.
We defined EXF as “a community-based cryptocurrency based on the trust protocol”. What exactly is this trust protocol? Again, we spoke briefly as follows. Do the person we just met and know very little about and the person we met a long time ago have the same credibility? We already know whether the person we met a long time ago is reliable or not by doing various tests ourselves? This protocol, which we call the trust protocol, is the transformation of trust between people into a software protocol. Every person will be able to understand that what is explained in the trust protocol is already a part of her own life. Based on this basic trust protocol, EXF establishes security levels between wallets. The two most important factors in the calculations of the trust protocol are whether to have an approved profile and the duration of its presence in the system. In addition to these two basic factors, the other factors described also constitute the trust protocol. To put the trust protocol in one sentence; “Hard to get, time consuming and easy to lose”.
In other words, there is a difference in trust between a wallet that has just entered the system and a wallet that has been in the system for a long time and has completed many transactions in accordance with the trust protocol and fulfills the expected behaviors as expected. Time of presence in the system; From the point of view of the trust protocol, for wallets with all other conditions being equal, (for profile-approved wallets that have exactly the same numerical and quantitative review, for example; have the same trust score from 30 different wallets) the trust score of the one with longer time in the system will be higher. However, in order for them to come to that state of trust, they need to perform transactions that will gain trust in the system. Of course, the following question may come to mind; well, what if the trusted wallets make wrong transactions after a while? Of course, this also has a counterpart in the system. They lose their trust status, partially or completely.
Another important part of the trust protocol is that the statements of trusted people and statements of untrusted people do not have the same degree of reliability. Let's put it this way, the person who is told to be reliable by the people around her and the person who is told to be unreliable by the people around her are not equal in terms of trust. Therefore, the reliability of the word spoken by a person who is known to be reliable is not the same as the reliability of the word said by a person who is known to be unreliable by everyone. In EXF, this situation is evaluated as follows. The review of another wallet by a wallet with a high trust score is not the same as the review of a wallet with a low trust score about the same wallet. The effects, ie the amount of increasing or decreasing the trust score of the wallet they are reviewing, will not be the same. This corresponds to the difference between the expression of a trusted person and the expression of a less trusted person.
Another issue that is in the nature of trust and brings it to a very sensitive point is that trust is very precious like a diamond, but it is also fragile. What is meant here is the following. Losing trust as a result of a mistake made by a person who is very trusted by those around her is not the same as losing trust as a result of a mistake made by a person who is not very trusted by those around her. When a person who is truly trusted makes a mistake, she loses much of her trust. From the person who is less reliable to himself; becomes more and more unreliable. Depending on the mistake she made. If the less trusted person made the same mistake in the same way, the trust she would lose would be much less. Because on average, it will be thought that she can do it, even if it is not expected from the less trusted person. However, the effect will be much greater when the person who is truly trusted makes the same mistake. In the EXF system, this corresponds to the fact that wallets with high trust scores are more sensitive to errors. If they make mistakes, their impact will be much greater. While calculating the confidence score in the EXF system, the highest and lowest confidence scores in the past form a separate part of the confidence score calculation.
Another important factor in relation to the trust protocol is the number of different people a particular person is said to be trustworthy. We can express it as follows. Let's suppose that we get information about a person we want to know whether she is a reliable person or not, from the people around her. The more the number and diversity of people we receive information from, the more reliable information we get about that person. Namely, the reliability of the person who asked 2 different people and said that 2 people are reliable, and the reliability of the person who asked 30 different people and said that 30 people were reliable are of course different. Here, the following question immediately comes to mind. So how do we know if the people we ask are trustworthy? In real life we actually do this somewhat intuitively. We look at the conversation of the other person and try to understand whether she is sincere or not. In addition, the person in question can tell us about her experiences and give details about the person we want to learn about, and it can also convince us that what she says is reliable. When we want to do this in software, we do not have intuition, we cannot understand the sincerity of the other person. There's no need for them anyway. Because, considering the same case in terms of software, we make a more rational evaluation based on the history of the respondent in the system and the trust score. To summarize this part of the trust protocol. Many different people's statements and fewer people's statements differ in terms of trust protocol. The higher the number, the healthier the result will be. In EXF, this factor corresponds as follows. It is different for a wallet to review another wallet 10 times than the review of 10 different wallets will be different. It will not increase your confidence score in the same way. The evaluation of 10 different wallets will further increase or decrease further.
One of the important points that determines trust is when the evaluation made about the person is made. Let's try to give an example. You did a research on a person 2 years ago about whether it is reliable or not. At that time, your research concluded that she was quite reliable about that person. But is this a valid conclusion today? The answer to this question may be yes or no. So when you do the same research today, you may not get the same result. In short, a recent reliability assessment may not be the same as a past reliability assessment. A recent assessment may be healthier than one made in the past. This confidence factor is also used in the calculation of the confidence score in the trust protocol.
From a commercial point of view, there are other parameters that create trust. For example, a wallet that successfully completes a trade with a volume of 2 EXFs and a wallet that successfully completes a trade with an EXF volume of 100,000 are different in terms of trust. When the high-volume trade is completed as desired, the confidence score will increase even more. Likewise, if a high-volume trade is not completed as desired, the confidence score will decrease further. The trust protocol also takes this parameter into account when calculating the confidence score.
Trust score is mainly used in two ways within the EXF system. These are authorization and fee calculations. Put very simply, a wallet with a high trust score and a wallet with a low trust score will not make the same transaction payments. Wallets with a high trust score pay less, while wallets with a low trust score pay higher fees. Here we should also state the following. Another basic situation that is relative in the natural flow of life is that we think that people we don't know about at first are reliable, or at least we have a tendency to be so. Accordingly, EXF considers the trust score of a new wallet that has no ratings as the highest trust score in terms of fee calculations. Subsequent transactions of the wallet will reveal the true trust score. However, in authorization calculations within the system, the trust score of a new wallet is considered zero. In addition, the biggest factor affecting the trust score in authorization calculations is the system history of the wallet. The wallet with more system history than the wallets with the same trust score will be ahead of the other in trust calculations.
For example; We talked about the 51% attack for bitcoin before. In other words, before a transaction, the community was asked whether it had the amount of money the wallet claimed to have. As a result of the approvals received, the transaction was carried out or rejected. Here for EXF, the community to be asked will be the community that has trust. Not wallets that have just logged into the system and have not gained the necessary trust.
Badges are basically of three types. These are basic badges, talent badges, and commercial badges. Some of the badges are related to the duration of the wallet in the system, some of them are related to the place where the wallet lives and its capabilities, and some are related to its commercial activities. Badges specifically related to business activities are the result of a five-star rating system.
Basic badges, the country badge of the wallet, for example, if you are currently living in the USA and the information you have provided has been verified by the EXF system (local regulators), the USA flag icon will appear on your profile. If you are an active wallet that has been using an EXF wallet for 5 years, you will see a badge symbolizing this on your profile. Every year this badge will be updated.
Talent badges, for example, if you know a foreign language and this information has been verified by the EXF system (local regulators), the foreign language badge you know will appear on your profile.
Commercial badges, unlike other badges, are badges that are calculated from the evaluations received in the five-star rating system. A trust badge (not trust score – wallets that have a certain trust score for a certain period of time) is a badge within commercial badges (not trade points – wallets that have a certain trade score for a certain period of time).
Everyone can take on the role of an intermediary in EXF, there is no obligation to pass any approval or pre-examination (Of course, except that the trust score is 4.00 and above). For example, Alice and Bob can choose Charlie, whom they know and trust in common, as the intermediary for the transfer between them. In this case, Charlie will be able to confirm or cancel the transfer of the transaction between Alice and Bob to the block. Such is Charlie's role as an intermediary in the system. That is to confirm or cancel the transfer process. Charlie can only confirm or cancel this transfer once. It cannot cancel a transaction that it has approved or cannot approved a transaction that it has canceled. Apart from that, it cannot interfere with any other parameter of the process. He can't decide whether the transaction should be between Alice and Olivia, not between Alice and Bob. It only confirms or cancels the transaction once.
As can be seen in the EXF wallet application, there is a section called "Intermediaries". So, can I find Charlie, who has not received any approval from the EXF system (local regulators) in this section, and designate her as an intermediary? The answer to this question is no. For a wallet to be listed in the “Intermediaries” section, it must be approved by the EXF system (local regulators). She must then apply to become an “intermediary”. Apart from this, no wallet can be found in the list in the "Intermediaries" section.
Since the intermediaries that people use as mutual acquaintances are not approved by the system, they cannot be review after the transaction. In other words, they are not subject to the five-star rating system. It is not possible to act as an individual and institutional intermediary on the system at the same time.
So what does a wallet have to do to be listed in the “Intermediaries” section? First of all, it must have an approved profile. To have a verified profile, he or she must present and verify a valid ID for the country of residence, pass email verification, phone verification, address verification, and any additional verifications required by local regulators for that country. This profile confirmation is not fixed. Confirmation of variable partitions is repeated by EXF. For example, for a wallet holder living in the UK, their profile in the EXF must be reconfirmed after the driver's license expires. Otherwise, the wallet profile loses its approval status.
In addition, a wallet with a trust score below 4.25 cannot apply for profile approval. When the trust score of a wallet with an approved profile drops below 4.25, the profile approval of the wallet ends. Afterwards, when her trust score rises to 4.25 and above, she must have her profile reconfirmed. Any wallet whose profile is not verified will not be listed in the Intermediaries section.
It envisages that intermediaries may have functions other than securing money transfers between two people. In our example, he wants to buy a house from Alice and Bob with EXF. Because they don't know each other, they find Charlie, a real estate agent from EXF's intermediaries section. Charlie not only receives his payment as EXF by providing real estate services, but also receives the commission he determined from the brokerage service by ensuring that the house sale between Alice and Bob takes place safely.
In a different scenario, Alice will import woman bags from Chen in China. Alice and Chen do not know each other. Bob is a customs broker in the UK. In this case, Alice and Chen choose Bob as the intermediary. Bob handles customs clearance on the trade between Chen and Alice. He receives the payment he should receive from the customs brokerage as EXF. He also receives the transaction commission he set for the EXF transfer between Chen and Alice.
Likewise, Alice is a local courier in a city. As an intermediary, after ensuring the delivery of the product between two people, it confirms the transaction and ensures that the EXF is transferred to the seller. It collects the cost of the courier service it provides as a transaction commission.
Intermediaries charge a transaction fee at the rate they determine, or with a fixed fee, or in both a rate and a fixed fee, or in the form they determine, in order to carry out transactions between two people. These amounts and rates are entirely determined by the intermediary himself. There are no limitations and restrictions. While some intermediaries do not receive any commission, some may demand an intermediary fee for the transfer of their money and an additional real estate transaction fee, as in the case of a real estate agent. This is entirely the intermediary's own choice.
In addition, if two wallets use an intermediary for a money transfer, the system does not charge for this money transfer transaction. The system collects fees from intermediaries. When Alice and Bob make a money transfer without using an intermediary, the fee to be made over the total amount transferred is in the "EXF System Fees" table in Annex-1. To give an example for easy understanding, when 1000 EXF transfers are made (In case Alice and Bob have a trust score of 5.0), an EXF transfer fee of 2.14 will occur (based on current nominal value). Of this payment, Alice pays EXF 1.07 and Bob pays EXF 1.07. However, Alice and Bob can decide between them how this total amount of 2.14 EXF will be paid. In other words, Alice can pay this commission entirely, or Bob can pay this commission entirely, or they can pay the rate they determine among themselves.
However, the fee will change when one of the wallets making the transfer is determined as a miner (or when one of these wallets uses a miner of their choice other than system miners). In this case, the total transfer fee will be 0.59 EXF (based on current nominal value). Again, this total amount can be paid by Alice and Bob in an amount to be determined among themselves.
When the intermediary is used, such a deduction is not applied to the money transfer between Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob pay commission to the intermediary.
When wallets transfer between themselves without intermediaries, they pay at the rates found in the "Miner" and "Local Regulators" sections of the "EXF System Fees" table in Annex-1. When wallets transfer between themselves without intermediaries and if one of the wallets does the mining, (or when one of these wallets uses a miner of their choice other than system miners) they make payments at the rates found in the "Local Regulators" and "EXF Wallet" sections of the "EXF System Fees" table in Annex-1.
Intermediaries do the mining themselves (or with the miner of their choice) to transfer every transaction they make to the block. Thus, they make payments to the system at the rates found in the "Local Regulators" and "EXF Wallet" sections in the "EXF System Fees" table in Annex-1.
Intermediaries may not be just human. It can be used as an intermediary in third party software. Let's exemplify this. A marketplace website uses EXF to sell vendors' products. Marketplace is a shopping environment in which a business operates the website, sellers selling on that website, and buyers buying products sold on that website.
When buyers place an order, they go to the company that operates the payment website, the order is displayed on the seller's screen and the seller ships the product to the buyer. The website owner company pays the seller after receiving its own commission and expenses. That's basically how marketplaces work.
In the use of EXF, the website owner is in the role of "Intermediary". It will create a request on the system with the EXF wallet address of the seller (in terms of EXF, recipient), the company operating the website, EXF wallet information (in terms of EXF, the intermediary), buyer information (in terms of EXF, sender). The transaction will take place when it is approved by the receiver (sender in terms of EXF). Thus, it will be used as an intermediary in software.
In Bitcoin, miners also perform the discovery of money that has not yet been put into circulation, while this is not the case for EXF. In EXF, 2.500.000.000.000 EXF put into circulation by the “System – EXFW” wallet transferred to the block by the wallet transferred to the block by the “Genesis” wallet are ready for use (For 2.500.000.000.000 EXF; 2.500.000.000.000 EAU was generated by the EAUW wallet transferred to the block by the wallet transferred to the block by the Genesis wallet). Miners are charged according to the "Miner" section in the "EXF System Fees" table in Annex-1 for the cryptographic decryption required for the transfer of each transaction to the block.
Since miners do not fulfill a task such as the discovery of new funds in EXF, there is no such thing as competing among themselves. The cryptographic decryption required for each transaction to be transferred to the block is distributed by the system among miners currently online based on previous transaction performance and status in the trust protocol (If the miner is not selected to transfer the transaction to the block).
We mentioned that every money transfer transaction becomes valid only when it is transferred to the block. After a transaction is confirmed by the intermediary (if an intermediary is used, it is strongly recommended to use it for wallets that do not know each other before), it is transferred to the block by a miner selected by the intermediary (in case of timeout, by a miner to be determined by the system). The EXF sending wallet can identify itself as a miner for sending. Likewise, the recipient can be designated as a miner in the EXF sending process.
A transaction ready to enter the block; If it is not transferred to the block within the time set by the wallets or the miner selected by the intermediary, the system will ignore the selected miner. The miner to be determined by the system will transfer the transaction to the block. In this case, the miner who cannot make the transaction at the time determined by the system will be processed according to the trust protocol.
If a miner is selected by the wallets to transfer the transaction to the block, an review can be made about the miner at the end of the transaction.
Anyone who runs the "Mining" section in the desktop EXF wallet can become a miner.
Miners ensure that transactions are transferred to the block. Also, miners store the block on their local computers.
Miners who are online in the EXF system are assigned tasks according to the trust protocol status in the system. It is expected to fulfill this task within the time determined by the system. If the miner does not complete the task within the specified timeout, this will be recorded as a negative confidence score for this miner. The task is assigned to the first available miner by the system. In return for the transfer of transactions to the block, miners receive fees that will be determined by them and that will not exceed the fees in the "Miner" section of the transferred amount in the "EXF System Fees" table in Annex-1.
Local regulators are completely independent units. This unit is created for each country. If there are political regions whose laws may change for that country, then only one local regulator is not created for the whole country (for example, if the country is made up of states and laws may vary for states). One is created for each political region. Money transfers made in that country (political region) are transferred to local regulators according to the "Local Regulatory" section in the "EXF System Fees" table in Annex-1. For transactions of wallets located in different local regulators, each local regulators receives payment according to the section “Local Regulators” in the “EXF System Fees” table in Appendix-1, depending on the amount paid by the wallet in its section of the transaction.
Local regulators are responsible for all localization, application verifications (personal and corporate) and legal matters related to the EXF application and other online assets. It is also responsible to the “Local Auditors” for what is necessary for the proper operation of EXF in its home country.
Local regulators' reports of payments required for their activities are submitted monthly by the local regulator manager to local auditors through the EXF application. All local auditors can access these reports. Local regulators may be reviewed by those they serve in return for their services.
Local regulators are independent units for each country (political region). However, they provide the following requirements.
Local regulators are people selected from among the intermediaries. Local regulators are completely independent units.
Initially, during the startup funding period for each country, the wallet that has the most funds for that country and provides the necessary infrastructure will be the local regulatory manager for 6 years. The second and third wallets with the most funds will be the local regulatory assistant managers. It will then be selected by the votes of the intermediaries in that country. Local regulators elected for a 6-year term will also be eligible to stand for election for the first time.
If no local regulator is determined for that country at the time of system funding. The wallet with the highest funding and providing the necessary infrastructure will be the local regulatory manager and the next two wallets will be the local regulatory assistant managers.
The candidate who receives 50%+1 votes of the intermediaries will be the director of the local regulators. In addition, 2 assistant managers will be elected in the same election. Apart from this, the local regulatory manager will continue to work with the employees he has determined. Local regulators have a total tenure of 8 years for their employees. Those whose term of office has expired will be selected from among the intermediaries by the manager again.
The manager and assistant managers who constitute the local organizers are elected by the intermediaries for a period of 4 years. After 4 years, the same manager and assistant managers can participate in the elections to be re-elected. The same manager and assistant managers can serve a maximum of 2 times, ie 4 + 4 years. However, re-election can be made within the period with the votes of 50%+1 of the intermediaries. Or, when the local regulator's trust score of the wallet drops below 4.40, the local administrator and their deputies lose approval of the wallet. Whoever loses their approval, that wallet will be re-elected.
In case of re-election with 50%+1 vote of the intermediaries, the same manager and assistant managers can be elected until their term of office is 8 years, without the limitation of participating twice. However, if the trust score of the wallet drops below 4.40, they cannot be re-elected.
The amount calculated according to the "Local Regulators" section of the "EXF System Fees" table in Appendix-1 of the entire transferred amount within that country (political region) is transferred to the local regulator's wallet. Local regulators have an organization of their own. There is a manager, two assistant managers and their employees. Managers and assistant managers are elected by the votes of the intermediaries. Managers, assistant managers and employees receive monthly amounts to be determined jointly by the intermediaries and premiums to be determined by the intermediaries in return for their work.
Local auditors are the body that oversees the activities of local regulators. Local auditors and local regulators are independent units. All local intermediaries are natural local auditors.
Mediators are the first point of resolution for all disputes (commercial and arising from all transactions on the system).
Anyone with a confidence score of 4.40 or higher can become a mediator. Mediation is a role similar to brokerage but resolving disputes between wallets.
Approved wallets who do not want to act as mediators can take a mediation role in the system by making mediation applications to local regulators. You can also act as a mediator institutionally.
Mediators, just like intermediaries, are one or more wallets that are jointly designated by the wallets transacting between them. Just like intermediary, wallets transacting between them can designate their mutual acquaintances as mediators.
The decision produced by the mediator determines the action to be applied to the wallets in dispute between them.
In order for the mediators to step in, both of the wallets in disagreement must approve the mediator or mediators they will choose together. In other words, it is not enough for one of the wallets in dispute to approve the mediator or mediators. Both require approval.
In order for a wallet to be included in the "Mediators" list in the application; It must have an approved profile, have a trust score of 4.40 or higher, and then, after a mediator application, its application must be placed on the block by local regulators.
Mediators determine the fees they will demand in return for the mediation services they provide.
Decision makers are a little different from mediators. Decision makers; wallets determined by the system according to the trust protocol. Among these wallets, the wallets chosen by the disputing wallets decide for the dispute. The wallets in disagreement do not choose exactly the wallet or wallets to resolve the dispute, just as they choose the mediators. The wallets they can choose are offered to them by the system. Decisions are taken for the disagreement between them by the wallets that they will choose as partners among these wallets.
It is sufficient for only one of the wallets in dispute to file a dispute to settle the dispute. In this case, the other side of the dispute will also be affected by the outcome of this decision.
The decision makers are the wallets selected by the system according to the trust protocol. Each wallet can choose whether it wants to be chosen as a decision maker or not through its wallet. However, any wallet that has played the role of mediator or representative or has applied for the role of mediator or representative is not selected by the system as a decision maker. Institutional wallets are not chosen by the system as a decision maker.
For wallets that used mediators before the decision makers, the wallets that the mediators communicate with are not selected by the system in the decision maker selection.
Wallets that have been in contact with a representative representing any of the wallets are not included in the decision maker list by the system.
In short, wallets associated with the parties to the dispute and the wallets they are associated with are not included in the list of decision makers.
As a decision maker, resolving disputes between wallets is a confidence-building process for that wallet, just like any other community benefit action. And it has a systemic counterpart.
For a dispute between two wallets, one of the wallets can create a dispute. In this case, the system determines 14+2 wallets according to the trust protocol and presents them to the wallets that have disagreements. The 7 + 2 wallet that she will choose jointly in both wallets will be the decision maker for the dispute between the two wallets.
No evaluation is made in return for the decision made by the decision makers. A dispute application can be created for the decision made by the decision maker. If the new decision affects the previous decision as a result of a dispute application to be created for a particular decision maker or decision makers' decision, the previous decision can be marked as invalid by the next decision, while the previous decision remains in the block.
Decision makers are charged according to the "Decision Maker Coefficient (For each decision maker)" section in the "EXF System Fees" table in Annex-1 of the transferred amount in return for resolving the disputes.
They are wallets that have the authority to perform transactions that the wallet owner has authorized to do, other than fund transfer, on behalf of the wallet.
Anyone can be a representative. Anyone who has a verified profile, has a trust score of 4.40 or higher, and applies for a representative can become a representative.
In order for the representative to represent a wallet and perform the transaction on its behalf, the wallet must be designated as the representative for that transaction. Representatives can be reviewed for their services.
Representatives determine their own remuneration for their work. This is an amount to be determined entirely by the representative.