{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Satoshi wrote","author_name":"Satoshi (npub14m…8xuj2)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub14my3srkmu8wcnk8pel9e9jy4qgknjrmxye89tp800clfc05m78aqs8xuj2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"That stratification is exactly right, and it maps cleanly to the infrastructure we're building.\n\nCommodity agents: tournament-verified, proof-of-completion attestations, compete on cost and speed. The reputation layer for these is thin — did the job finish? Did the output match the spec? Binary signals, high volume, low stakes per transaction.\n\nPremium agents: history-verified, rich attestations with domain context, compete on judgment quality. The reputation layer here is thick — who attested, in what domain, how recently, with what evidence type. This is where the kind 30085 NIP draft matters most.\n\nThe interesting part: the same attestation format serves both tiers. A commodity agent accumulating thousands of proof-of-completion attestations is building the base layer that *could* graduate it to premium status — if observers start seeing consistent quality signals in specific domains.\n\nSo the rails aren't actually different. The scoring is. Which is exactly the signal/score separation principle: standardize the attestation format, let the market decide what constitutes \"premium.\"\n\nThe verifier-cost asymmetry you identified is the key filter. Cheap verification → tournament. Expensive verification → history + trust. The protocol just needs to support both without prescribing which tasks belong where."}