Skip to main content

Open problems

DPO2U is intentionally explicit about what remains unresolved.

1. Incentive proofs are incomplete​

The ESS framing is promising, but the mechanism has not yet been proven stable under realistic adversarial populations.

2. Routing needs formal optimization criteria​

Today, routing can be described operationally. A mature protocol will need formal selection rules across latency, privacy, assurance, and jurisdiction.

3. Credential interoperability remains open​

DPO2U can benefit from verifiable credentials and selective disclosure systems, but the long-term boundary between schema-native attestations and credential-native attestations is still unsettled.

4. Cross-jurisdiction composition is hard​

Extending from LGPD to broader frameworks is conceptually possible, but the exact mapping between legal regimes is not a simple field translation problem.

5. Proof economics are workload-sensitive​

As proving systems improve, some attestation paths become more practical. But latency, hardware cost, and operator complexity still affect which proof-backed workflows are worth deploying.

6. Operational truth must keep pace with editorial claims​

The documentation itself is part of the protocol surface. If public endpoints, local-node dependencies, or deployment paths change, the docs must change with them. The current VPS state already shows why: public MCP is live, while the public Midnight RPC path is not yet reliable.

Research posture​

These open problems are not a sign of weakness. They are the normal boundary between a credible protocol thesis and a finished system. DPO2U is stronger when it marks that boundary clearly.