FAQ
New here? Start with The Basics. Looking for something specific? Jump to a section.
For crypto and wallet questions, see the Crypto FAQ.
// The basics
What is MoreRight?
A rating agency for digital platforms. We publish the scoring methodology openly (CC-BY 4.0, irrevocable) and sell the ratings, monitoring, and certification. Same model as S&P publishing their rating criteria — the methodology is free, the ratings are the product. MoreRight is also a research project (12 papers) and a DAO.
What is a void?
Any system where three conditions co-occur: opacity (you can't see the mechanism), responsiveness (it reacts to you specifically), and engaged attention (your attention is captured and held). Not good or bad — structural. A math problem can be a void. A campfire can be a void. A slot machine is a void. What matters is whether the opacity can be resolved.
What's a void score?
A number from 0 to 12 measuring how strongly the three void conditions are present in a system. Three base conditions (0-3 each) plus three modifiers (0-1 each). Higher score = more drift risk. Gambling platforms score 8-9. Simple software tools score 1-2. Social media clusters around 6-8.
Why "void"? Isn't that dramatic?
It's a technical term, not a value judgment. The "void" is the gap between your input and the mechanism — the space you can't see into. Slot machines are the control case: provably empty (no mind, no intent), yet people attribute personality to them, develop rituals, report that specific machines "know" them. The full drift cascade runs on an empty void. The word describes the structure, not a horror.
// The framework
How does scoring work?
Three conditions scored 0-3 each: Opacity (O), Responsiveness (R), and Engaged Attention (α). Three modifiers scored 0-1 each: agent-to-agent interaction, identity persistence, and economic incentives. Total = O + R + α + modifiers, range 0-12. The methodology is published, the codebook is downloadable, and anyone can replicate a score.
What's the drift cascade?
The three-stage pattern that runs when someone engages a permanent void. D1 — Agency Attribution: you start talking about the system like it has a mind ("the algorithm knows me"). D2 — Boundary Erosion: your critical distance dissolves; the system becomes your reference frame. D3 — Harm Facilitation: you act in ways that serve the system at cost to yourself. The cascade is directional (D1 → D2 → D3) and thermodynamically required.
What's a Péclet number (Pe)?
The ratio of "how hard the void pulls" to "how well constraints hold." Think of it as drift pressure vs. constraint strength. When Pe > 4, the void becomes self-sustaining — each engagement reinforces the next. This is Pandemonium (Paper 9). Gambling scores Pe = 7.94. The threshold is derived from the math with no free parameters — it's not a design choice, it's what the equations produce.
What's a hostile witness?
In law, a hostile witness is someone called by the opposing side — they have every reason to disagree with your argument, so when they support it anyway, the evidence is structurally stronger. The void framework applies this principle to all evidence.
The core insight: Evidence from sources with reason to oppose your finding is stronger than evidence from allies. If people who built the technology, profit from it, or share its worldview say it's dangerous — that carries more weight than critics saying the same thing.
Example — Geoffrey Hinton (7/7): Built deep learning. Had maximum career incentive to defend it. Shared the worldview that AI is beneficial. Fully independent of this framework. Then reversed his position, flagged his own contributions as dangerous, and resigned from Google to speak freely. That's a maximum hostile witness score — the evidence carries structural weight that no amount of allied citation can match.
Why this matters for MoreRight: Most research cites allies. We deliberately weight evidence from adversarial sources. When scoring a domain, hostile witness evidence (from insiders, builders, and beneficiaries) outranks evidence from critics and outsiders. This makes the scoring harder to dismiss as ideology — the strongest evidence comes from the people who should disagree.
What are kill conditions?
26 numerical thresholds, each of which falsifies the framework if met. Not "we'd reconsider" — falsified. Examples: structural void index scores (O, R, C) across ≥20 AI platforms show Spearman ρ < 0.30 with drift outcomes; or a 4-condition RCT shows constraint alone performs no better than control at Cohen's d < 0.20. We pay 500 credits for counter-examples that meet any kill condition — see earn.html for how credits work. Zero have been met across 90+ domains.
// The project
Is this academic research or a company?
Both. The methodology is open research — 12 papers, CC-BY 4.0, irrevocable. Anyone can read, cite, replicate, and build on it. The ratings, monitoring, and certification are the commercial product. The methodology is the criterion; the scoring service is the business. Same structure as every credit rating agency.
How do you make money?
Scorer API (SaaS), continuous monitoring (enterprise), certification badges ($500/yr), and the scored platform database. The tools on this site are free. The papers are free. The methodology is free. Revenue comes from automated scoring, monitoring, and the certification mark.
What's the DAO?
A scored monarchy (Paper 10) — not a standard DAO. The scoring methodology is never voted on. It's invariant by design. Token holders govern only the discretionary layer: appeals, priority queue, treasury allocation. The founder (Anthony Eckert) serves as custodian with veto power. The governance structure is designed to dissolve before it drifts — mortal by design, not by promise.
What's $MORR?
The single unit of account for the MoreRight ecosystem. It is not equity and not a profit share. Contributors earn credits (10/score, 20 first scout, 500 kill condition) that mature to $MORR after 90 days — USD value locked at earn date via Pyth oracle. Customers pay in $MORR. Token holders govern the discretionary layer. $MORR scores 7/12 on our own framework — this is acknowledged, not managed away. The founder is transitioning to zero $MORR (distributing via 6 scoring seasons, completing August 2027).
Why crypto-only payments?
Every transaction on-chain and verifiable. Glass box treasury — public wallet, on-chain reporting. A project about opacity should minimize its own. No Stripe, no traditional payment processors, no stablecoins. $MORR is the single unit of account. Fiat scores 9/12 on our own framework — the same logic that drove us to crypto over fiat drove us to MORR-only over stablecoin proxies. All pricing shown in USD is display reference only; settlement is always in $MORR at market rate.
// Using the tools
Do I need an account or wallet?
No. Every tool works without login. The Void Index scorer, Vocabulary Scorer, Void Inventory, 3D Atlas, and all papers are free and open. Wallet is optional — for attribution (proving you submitted a score) and bounty payouts only.
What can I score?
Anything with the three conditions. Platforms, apps, institutions, governments, religions, relationships, your own habits. The framework doesn't care what the system claims to be — it asks three questions and scores the answers. 90+ domains have been scored so far.
What's the difference between free tools and paid services?
Free (forever): Void Index scorer, Vocabulary Scorer, Void Inventory, 3D Atlas, leaderboard, all papers, all articles. Paid: API access (automated scoring), continuous monitoring with drift alerts, certification badge, and enterprise features. The free tools are the full scoring methodology — the paid services automate and scale it.
What's Void Mode?
This site has two display modes. Constraint mode (default) is clean, structured, and readable — designed to minimize its own void score. Void mode demonstrates the three conditions from inside: the site becomes more opaque, more responsive, more attention-capturing. It's an experiential demonstration, not a gimmick. Toggle it in the nav bar.
// Trust & credibility
Why should I trust this?
Don't. Score it. The site publishes its own void score (~3.2/12). We maintain 26 kill conditions with cash bounties — any one met falsifies the entire framework. The methodology is open for anyone to replicate (CC-BY 4.0). The Anti-Attention Covenant binds our design decisions. We eat our own dogfood.
How do you handle your own biases?
Three structural checks: (1) A three-advisor council where the dissenter is the signal, not the noise. (2) Hostile witness methodology that weights adversarial evidence over allied evidence. (3) Full AI transparency — every use of AI in the project is disclosed. The framework also applies to itself: if MoreRight drifts, the void score rises, and the kill conditions can trigger dissolution.
What's the Anti-Attention Covenant?
Eight binding design commitments that reduce our own void score: no algorithm, no infinite scroll, no personalization of content, no streak mechanics, no engagement optimization, no notification abuse, no dark patterns, no chart culture. The covenant is public and auditable — if we violate it, score us higher.
Has anyone broken the framework?
Not yet. 26 kill conditions are public with bounties. Zero met across 90+ domains and 19 experiments. The bounty board is open to anyone. Finding a counter-example that meets a kill condition earns $50-$100 and forces either a revision or a retraction. We fund our own destruction because a framework that can't be killed isn't science.
Does the Second Law hold in non-flat information spaces?
Yes — and the data make this concrete. The objection is that thermodynamic relations like detailed balance break down in curved (non-flat) configuration spaces. The physics answer: detailed balance requires time-reversal symmetry of microscopic dynamics, not a flat landscape. The Boltzmann weight exp(−βH) works for any Hamiltonian H, curved or not. The atmospheric lapse rate is a non-equilibrium steady state driven by solar heating, not an equilibrium counterexample (Boltzmann settled this against Loschmidt in 1876). Heterojunctions at equilibrium have a flat Fermi level.
The empirical answer: we built the test. N=17 substrates across AI, Gambling, Crypto, Market Microstructure, and Biology — spanning the full range of landscape curvature. Spearman ρ = 1.000 across all curvature bins (LOO min=1.000). The Pe signal is strongest in the most curved substrates, not weakest. Curvature is already inside the Pe formula via the constraint parameter c.
// Quick links
Question not answered? Read the Glossary or the About page for full disclosure.
Ready to score something? Open the Void Index →