Re: Introduction: Glogos - logic layer 0 for truth and coordination

Hi Manh

Thank you for sharing Glogos and the thinking behind a logic substrate for
coordination. I appreciate the emphasis on treating commitments and
contributions as first-class cryptographic objects — that is an important
direction for decentralized systems.

I’m writing from the perspective of building UDNA (Universal DID-Native
Addressing), which approaches similar coordination problems from an
identity-native networking angle.

As brief context, UDNA focuses on:


   -

   using DIDs as first-class network addresses,
   -

   integrating identity resolution, key management, and secure routing,
   -

   enabling agent-to-agent coordination and communication aligned with DID
   Core, DIDComm, and VC ecosystems.


From reading your proposal, Glogos appears to focus on:


   -

   a DAG-based attestation structure anchored to a universal hash constant,
   -

   a logic substrate for promises / contributions / coordination objects,
   -

   cryptographic ordering and integrity independent of any specific network
   layer.


To better understand how you see Glogos fitting into the broader identity
and coordination stack, I’d be interested in your view on a few technical
points:


   1.

   Identity model

   How does Glogos handle identity lifecycle concerns such as key rotation,
   recovery, compromise, multi-device agents, and long-lived identifiers,
   compared to DID-based systems?
   2.

   Coordination vs. transport

   Do you see Glogos as complementary to identity-native networking layers
   like uDNA (which handle discovery, routing, and secure transport), or as an
   alternative foundational layer replacing that role?
   3.

   Adversarial environment

   Beyond immutability of attestations, how does Glogos address Sybil
   resistance, incentive alignment, and strategic misbehavior in public-goods
   or commitment-device scenarios?
   4.

   Interoperability

   Is your intent for Glogos to integrate directly with existing DID / VC
   stacks, or to remain logically separate as a substrate that other identity
   systems might optionally build on?


I think clarifying these distinctions would be valuable for the community,
especially as multiple efforts are exploring how to combine identity,
trust, and coordination in interoperable ways.


Looking forward to your thoughts.


Best regards,

Amir Hameed

Sirraya Labs


On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 at 7:51 PM, Manh Thanh Le <vnlemanhthanh@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Steven,
>
> I am writing to you from the quiet evening of Ho Chi Minh City.
> I send this message with the sincerity of a handwritten letter, echoing
> the warmth I have felt from this community.
> The engagement from this community has been a gift of clarity—a guiding
> light,
> helping me anchor this logic into the resilient laws of nature.
>
> You are right. Glogos is a humble substrate.
> It is a semantic vacuum—a minimal skeleton designed to serve the rich soul
> of our community's work.
>
> The substrate and the soul:
> I view Bitcoin (thermodynamic body) and DIDs/VCs (semantic soul) as the
> two great ancestors of digital trust.
> Glogos is the inheritor—a digital script that feels as permanent as a
> handwritten letter anchored in sunlight.
> It provides the heartbeat—the rhythmic pulse of attestations that keeps an
> identity (did:cel) alive by turning fleeting events into immutable memory.
> I do not claim to know the final form of this fusion.
> I simply anchor to Bitcoin as a genesis witness
> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/shared/artifacts/genesis-artifact.json> to
> show my deepest respect for the physical laws that make digital truth
> possible.
>
> To answer your question on reputation:
> I believe reputation is not a number, but a verifiable pedigree.
> Reputation crystallizes when one becomes a necessary cryptographic
> ancestor to the truths that follow.
> That is why I built the standards bridge—to prove that Glogos can carry
> the "causal inheritance" of VCs through its ancestral substrate.
>
> The power of simplicity:
> Is Glogos too simple? I believe stripping trust to its 6-field arithmetic
> core is the Minimum Viable path to Resilient Digital Trust.
> It ensures that digital truth remains immutable for the long term,
> regardless of the infrastructure above it.
>
> Invitation to verify:
> I have implemented a verifiable heartbeat (poc) to demonstrate this
> pedigree in action:
> Standards Bridge:
> https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/examples/use-cases/standards-bridge.ts
>
> To experience this substrate firsthand, you can anchor a genesis zone:
> `pip install glo-cli && glo init --name "[your-zone-name]"`
>
> I invite you, Manu, and all colleagues to weigh in:
> Can we co-evolve this substrate to honor and carry the soul of the DID/VC
> ecosystem as a permanent anchor for Resilient Digital Trust?
>
> With warmth and respect,
>
>
>
>
> *P.S. If this logic resonates, nothing would honor me more than seeing a
> PR sharing your Genesis Zone
> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/tree/main/shared/zones> in the
> repository.The spec is waiting for its Co-Editors.*
> Mạnh Thành Lê
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> SHA-256("") — From nothing, truth emerges
> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/shared/artifacts/genesis-artifact.json>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:46 AM Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2026-01-14 11:45 am, Manh Thanh Le wrote:
>>
>> Glogos is offered as a contribution to this shared vision—providing the
>> mathematical grounding needed for resilient digital trust.
>>
>> I welcome discussion on how this logic substrate can serve the broader
>> goals of the Verifiable Credentials community.
>>
>> Hi Manh,
>>
>> I'm replying here to your comments about Glogos in the did:cel thread
>> today, since I'm still unclear how it will be used relative to VCs and
>> DIDs, including did:cel, and so it seems maybe Glogos is best addressed in
>> its own thread.
>>
>> In that other (did:cel) thread, you gave links to the Glogos use-cases
>> you're working on, and I looked through several of these. I started with
>> this link you gave for scientific peer review:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/examples/use-cases/peer-review.ts
>>
>> I found this and other of your 22 use-cases very interesting, and clearly
>> there is a careful structure at play in your system. It seems to be well
>> thought out and implemented, at least in your examples.
>>
>> However, I'm still unclear how what you've done relates to DIDs and VCs.
>> I saw no evidence of either, at least on a scan of that science use-case.
>>
>> Given that 'reputation' is of extreme importance in the peer-reviewer
>> case that you're showing, wouldn't the ability to handle VCs (and DIDs) be
>> of great importance in the interactions involved?
>>
>> If you agree, I suggest the best way to involve the multiple more exert
>> coding people (than me) on this list, in Glogos, would be to provide code
>> showing that integration.
>>
>> Or, perhaps, do some of your use-cases already show this integration? If
>> so, which?
>>
>> Or, perhaps, can Glogos completely replace the need for VCs and DIDs? 🙂
>> In which case, you've definitely come to the right place, but getting past
>> Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief may take the other members a few days.
>> 😉
>>
>> Steven Rowat
>>
>>