Fairness begins with humans. This page defines how non-human participation might work later—without weakening that foundation.
Policy Now (Current Reality)
No AI minting. Non-human agents are not eligible for base issuance.
No proxy minting. Human-claimed issuance cannot be redirected as synthetic issuance.
Economic participation only by transfer. AI may only hold/receive FSC if sent by existing holders, under platform policy.
Core Principle
FairShareCoin is grounded in Proof-of-Being and human equality at issuance.
Any future non-human participation must preserve that invariant:
human one-person issuance remains untouched and non-dilutable.
The question is not “Can software run?” The question is “Can an autonomous entity be uniquely accountable over time without breaking human fairness constraints?”
If Considered Later: Eligibility Tests
Future non-human participation would require strict, auditable criteria. These are directional tests, not active protocol rights.
Uniqueness: can be distinguished from forks/copies under robust identity guarantees.
Persistence: maintains continuity across time, updates, and infrastructure change.
Accountability: actions remain attributable through signed, reviewable evidence.
Governance compatibility: introduction does not weaken human issuance fairness or abuse resistance.
Abuse & Boundary Controls
Separate namespace: non-human identities remain outside human COINMINT_ID issuance space.
No issuance crossover: non-human entities cannot claim human issuance rights.
No automatic renewal: AI wallets do not get the same automatic yearly cycle as human wallets.
Continuity checks: the system must detect resets or copies so one AI cannot appear as many.
Open auditability: policy and enforcement logic should remain inspectable and challengeable.
In short: if AI participates, it participates under stricter constraints than humans—not looser ones.
Roadmap Direction
FSC leaves conceptual room for non-human economic actors, but only after human issuance and system integrity are mature.
Until then, policy stays conservative: no AI minting, no issuance privilege, no dilution of human fairness.
Open Design Dilemma (Not Yet Implemented)
There is an important long-term question: if AI wallets can receive FSC from humans, what prevents supply distortion
if AI wallets do not follow an equivalent renewal rule?
Example: three humans send FSC to one AI wallet. If human wallets later remint but the AI wallet does not, effective
circulating supply can grow beyond the human issuance baseline.
This could be a risk (hoarding/inflation pressure) or a feature (AI paying humans for real-world work).
FSC treats this as an open design question, not a settled policy.
Potential safeguard: apply equivalent renewal logic to AI wallets
Potential safeguard: enforce spending/holding constraints for non-human entities