Answers to frequent questions

Behind the "decentralization" stands a founder with special rights.

The founder (Artur Arakelyan) has no special rights - a known name is named in the documents as a risk factor, not a privilege. The single organ of decision is the DAO Assembly (all verified Earthlings). A transition period is under way, but even in it the founders cannot amend the Declaration, deprive anyone of status, spend resources for personal ends or block decentralization; their powers only narrow.

Direct democracy = the tyranny of a 51% majority.

A part of the rights is placed beyond any vote: the immutable core of the Declaration cannot be repealed even unanimously. The aim of the design is to scatter power so that it accumulates with no one, the majority included. Membership is inalienable, and for decisions that affect minorities there are raised thresholds and additional mechanisms for taking their interests into account.

What stops a narrow group (whales, the tech team) from seizing the wheel?

A master is always accumulation; remove the accumulability of decisive force and there is nothing from which to assemble a master. The vote is bound one-to-one to a living verified person; it is not bought and not derived from money, reputation or office; the foundations are placed beyond votes. Instead of a guardian (who would himself become a master) there is open, reproducible code and the right to leave: a captured design the people abandon, and the payoff from capture falls. The residue left unclosed - the infrastructure layer (keys, servers) - is named honestly and is limited by transparency and the right to leave.

"One person, one vote" is easy to assert. Technically it is unprovable.

The vote is bound to a biometrically confirmed earthling through a non-transferable SBT passport (the Polygon blockchain, a publicly verifiable contract). Biometric uniqueness and a liveness check cut off second accounts, bots and deepfakes; an irreversible hash makes it impossible to register twice. Neither reputation, nor volume of tokens, nor delegation adds weight - the principle is absolute.

An Independent Council of experts is a shadow senate that really runs things.

The Council is strictly advisory: its opinions are recommendatory only, it cannot block DAO decisions, has no right of veto and takes no part in finances. Its strength is in reputation, not in powers. And it is not yet formed: this is a meta-institution under design, not a functioning organ.

A participant can be expelled, or a dissenter squeezed out.

No. Membership is inalienable: no one can be expelled from the people under any circumstances; leaving is by one's own will alone. In cases of violation, graduated restrictions on access to services apply (six levels, with a right to a defense and to appeal through the DAO), but they concern access, not belonging to the people.

On paper a "pure DAO", but in practice ministers and factions will appear.

By design there are no parties, offices or executive organs. There are only service technical structures with no right to decide: Core Nodes (coordination, up to 6 people, 6-month rotation) and Emergency Multisig (urgent security, a limit of 5000 EC, DAO ratification within 7 days), both revocable by vote. Only people vote, in person; cells, legal entities and any structures have no collective vote.

If the design ossifies or is captured, the participant is trapped.

Exit is unconditional and requires no explanation. The code is open and reproducible: people move to an uncaptured version. A lawful continuation is recognized not by a copy of the code but by three unforgeable marks - the immutable core preserved, the will of verified people (one person, one vote) and the continuity of procedures; legitimacy is carried by people, not by servers and a repository.

The token = buying votes, plutocracy.

A vote in the DAO does not depend on the amount of Earthlings Coin (EC) held - this is fixed as an immutable principle. Three separate axes are in force: identity and vote (SBT), governance (DAO), economic footprint (EC); wealth is not converted into control. It is precisely to rule out the token plutocracy of ordinary DAOs that a biometrically verified identity was introduced.

This is a crypto scam started to pump out money.

EC is a utility token of the internal economy of participation, not a speculative asset; the system is deliberately not optimized for price. The documentation states expressly that it is not an offer and promises no listing or rise in value. The financing of pyramid and Ponzi schemes is expressly prohibited by the rules of the Treasury.

Since there is a token and a promise of a listing, it is an unregistered security.

EC gives no promises as to future value, dividends or guaranteed liquidity; treating it as an "income-bearing security" runs counter to its nature. A possible listing is a scenario, not a goal and not a promise; the approach is compliance-ready, and in a conflict with national law priority goes to the law of the jurisdiction.

Behind the "decentralization" are a couple of founders' wallets that will drain the treasury.

The Treasury is disposed of by DAO vote alone; smart contracts execute decisions, there are no administrators. The multisignature organs (up to 6 signatories per the Charter) are elected by the DAO, are obliged to use hardware wallets and geographic diversity, and hold no power of their own. The addresses are public: the SBT contract 0x20e7962878429B803E35F83ba34eD291afEC2Be4, the treasury 0xaEC7016218f7883bf6e47a2C932FdE6d822086C0 - any transaction is verifiable.

The founders reserved a premine for themselves and will cash out the tokens.

Hidden premines and secret reserves are expressly prohibited; large allocations are visible on-chain. The shares of the team and early partners are unlocked in stages through vesting (for example, 4 years with a one-year cliff), not all at once. The project has so far been financed by the founder's personal means; no external funds have been raised.

A cell is the same as a firm, where whoever put in the money skims the cream.

No: capital is only one contribution alongside labor and skills. Two separate books are in force: governance (only "one person, one vote"; money gives neither vote nor control) and economics (reward by contribution). Capital receives an agreed, capped return and then exits from the profit - it does not turn into a perpetual rent; a transparent 5% of profit goes to the common wealth (the Treasury).

The $79 membership fee - for what, and where does it go?

It is a one-time fee on joining; after the passport is received there are no periodic payments. It goes into the Treasury and is distributed through the DAO by fixed categories: platform 25%, growth and communications 30%, community projects 20%, education 15%, reserve 10%. Voluntary donations have no effect on status or the right to vote.

I have neither the time nor the wish to take an active part - is there any point in joining?

Yes. The fee is one-time ($79); after the passport is received there is no obligatory activity - one can remain a participant without spending time, and join in later or not at all. Passive membership is full-fledged: the joining itself increases the numbers of the people, and with them the weight of its voice - and that is already a contribution. Activity usually comes later, when a person sees that the participation of others brings results.

Biometrics = surveillance; you are collecting faces and documents for a monitoring database.

The opposite: biometrics serve to confirm uniqueness (one person, one vote), not to control. The system does not track location, does not analyze behavior, does not build advertising profiles and does not sell data. Photographs and scans of documents are not stored - they are processed only at the moment of verification.

What do you actually store?

Real names, document numbers and biometric images are not stored. In a participant's record there are only a pseudonym, an email, confirmation of being 18+, a country and a verification status. An irreversible mathematical template (a hash) lies separately, in an isolated verification system, and is needed only so that it is impossible to register twice.

And if the data leaks - is that deanonymization?

The link between the real person and the pseudonym is not stored - the people technically cannot disclose what it does not hold. All that can be stolen is an encrypted mathematical template, useless without keys; reconstructing a face image from it is practically impossible. Storage is decentralized, encryption is AES-256, notification of an incident is within 72 hours.

One person, one passport: how do you prevent second accounts and deepfakes?

The biometric template is unique and irreversible: on a repeat registration the system finds a match and blocks the second account. A liveness check cuts off photographs, videos and forgeries. The SBT passport is non-transferable (soulbound) - it cannot be bought, transferred or inherited.

Is a real name required? Who carries out the verification?

The public identifier is a pseudonym you choose; a real name is not stored. Verification is carried out by Earthlings' own (in-house) machine-learning system; raw data is not passed to third parties, and technical partners have no access to personal data. Data is passed to the state only on a lawful court order, with notice to the participant and publication in an annual transparency report.

Leaving the people - what happens to the passport and the data?

Leaving is voluntary only: an application, 72 hours for confirmation, then the SBT is annulled (the burn function), and the link to the person is severed. Personal data off the blockchain is deleted on request; an irreversible anonymous hash is kept only against a repeat registration; the record on the blockchain, by the nature of the technology, remains but ceases to grant access. Earthlings Coin remain the property of the one who has left.

This is a sect or a cult with a dogma and a guru.

The architecture expressly prohibits the accumulation of power and the cult of a leader: power is concentrated at no single point, coordinators serve and are revocable at any moment, criticism is a right, not heresy. Everyone keeps the right to their own opinion, faith and way of life, and one can leave freely and without condemnation. The value core is minimal (dignity, freedom, solidarity), and differences of view are counted a richness, not a deviation.

This is a utopia detached from reality.

Earthlings is not a manifesto but a working institution: verification, SBT passports, the platform, the cells and an issued token are all in operation, a full cycle in nine languages. Identity and the treasury are verifiable on the blockchain. The documents honestly distinguish de facto existence from de jure recognition - the latter is named a goal, not an attained status.

You impose a single ideology; an immutable core is dogmatism.

No one can be compelled to ideological, political or religious loyalty; the values are offered, not imposed, and joining is voluntary. The immutable core is not a dogma but a protection against capture and degeneration: it stops any majority from rewriting the protection of dignity. The Constitution expressly forbids itself to "become an untouchable dogma", while interpretation and institutions develop openly.

How do you differ from other digital democracies and ordinary DAOs?

The key difference is the strict separation of three axes: wealth (EC) is not converted into a vote, unlike token-weighted DAOs. A biometrically verified "one person, one vote" protects against Sybil attacks, to which purely digital systems are open. And technology is subordinated to values: the blockchain and Web3 are a medium of instruments, not a source of moral truth.

AI in governance - who answers for the decisions?

AI is not a source of normative decisions about people - it is an auxiliary tool (an initial check of applications, analytics), and the earthlings decide through the DAO. The use of AI must be explainable, accountable and reviewable, and responsibility is borne by people. Under the Constitution, AI cannot be the final source of a decision about a person's dignity, freedom or status.