zlacker

[return to "A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw"]
1. okinok+rx3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 14:17:29
>>brdd+(OP)
>all delegation involves risk. with a human assistant, the risks include: intentional misuse (she could run off with my credit card), accidents (her computer could get stolen), or social engineering (someone could impersonate me and request information from her).

One of the differences in risk here would be that I think you got some legal protection if your human assistant misuse it, or it gets stolen. But, with the OpenClaw bot, I am unsure if any insurance or bank will side with you if the bot drained your account.

◧◩
2. kaicia+LN3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 15:34:18
>>okinok+rx3
That liability gap is exactly the problem I’m trying to solve. Humans have contracts and insurance. Agents have nothing. I’m working on a system that adds economic stake, slashing, and "auditability" to agent decisions so risk is bounded before delegation, not argued about after. https://clawsens.us
◧◩◪
3. themgt+014[view] [source] 2026-02-04 16:31:07
>>kaicia+LN3
> Credits (ꞓ) are the fuel for Clawsensus. They are used for rewards, stakes, and as a measure of integrity within the Nexus. ... Credits are internal accounting units. No withdrawals in MVP.

chef's kiss

◧◩◪◨
4. bandra+x46[view] [source] 2026-02-05 04:51:21
>>themgt+014
Griftception
[go to top]