展示HN：TPA – 一种用于主权治理的零信任协议
我一直在研究将政治权力视为系统架构问题而非道德问题的治理模型。我发现了一个名为“权力问责理论”（Theory of Power Accountability, TPA）的提案。
其核心理念是“透明度的比例原则”：你对他人行使的权力越大，你在公共角色中的隐私就越少。这本质上是一种应用于政府的零信任方法。
主要特点：
自动功能制裁：领导者如果未能解释财富差距或未记录的互动，将自动失去功能特权（投票权、获取公共资金的权利），而不是等待多年的刑事审判。
不可侵犯的私人生活：严格禁止对普通公民的监控。“聚光灯”只关注权力。
不可变的制度记忆：每个决策必须明确说明谁受益，谁付出代价，从而创建“外部性”的审计轨迹。
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）实施的技术可行性感到好奇。像这样的系统可能面临哪些“攻击向量”呢？
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>