hie-core VS whitepaper

A challenger to Solidity? Never heard of anyone else using this before.

How does it make sense to say that a system is both a blockchain and not a blockchain at the same time? Is enterprise blockchain (also called DLT) censorship resistant? What are the main challenges of implementing enterprise blockchain in real life, and how can Daml (Digital Asset’s open source smart contract language and platform) help tackle the challenges? We’ll look at those questions and others in this post.

I'm looking for Daml (smart contracts) developers to build out smart contract templates for a wallet application will be used to mint / swap / send digital asset.

It's extremely easy to get started. All you need to do is describe the behavior of your application in an easy to read and write smart-contract language, and let Daml take care of infrastructure and integrations. You can take a look here https://daml.com/

If the goal is to create a supply chain management system, and get experience in writing smart contracts, I would suggest checking out Daml (https://daml.com/). Daml is a smart contract language which can be later deployed onto Hyerpledger Fabric if you wish, or other blockchains.

Does Circles UBI count?

Have you come across this project yet? https://joincircles.net/

Nick Land's book Crypto-Current: Bitcoin & Philosophy is interesting. He would probably say that crypto is self-critiquing. We are arguably seeing this self-critiquing nature of crypto actually playing out in the competition to write new "ethical white papers". So you might also try researching some post-bitcoin white papers, as these critique bitcoin and try to improve upon it. Two specific examples are the Circles Whitepaper, which I like and think makes a convincing case for the atomic base case of default trustlessness (and I like their idea that we all have to actively choose what money system we use, if we want to change from the default—but Circles also makes no sense in terms of scarcity economics, it could only be adopted voluntarily); and the Ethereum Improvement Proposals or EIPs, which trace the self-critique of the Ethereum blockchain.

I think instead of an objective solution, we can have a subjective solution where each person builds a web of trust by starting with a few known individuals. Circles has a model sort of like this for getting on the network and for linking together individuals who don't know each other.

I think Circles is interesting. It's a global, fair, voluntary system that seems to truly start at the theoretical grassroots level. If we all opted to use Circles, it would fix a lot of things. Maybe the idea can be improved upon.

Actually, that is pretty similar to how Circles UBI works, so maybe that would be a good place to start! Circles gives everyone who has a wallet the same constant income forever, and it starts when you get three vouches from existing users and create your wallet. (So it incentivizes early adoption of the UBI system, but is increasingly fair over the long-term the longer everyone has been in the system.) Circles starts with nobody being connected and Circles being non-fungible, and then peer-to-peer connections are explicitly approved that allow tokens to be fungible only insofar as p2p links are approved.

With crypto we can actively imagine and design our own social relations and then make that into a protocol anyone can use. It doesn't have to be about numbers and money. It can be any rules or actions that you can imagine and articulate. That's why it's so interesting. Have you read the Circles UBI white paper? That's one of the better post-Ethereum white papers I have seen. It doesn't oversell the potential and it's a pretty grounded discussion of the requirements for something like this to take off (i.e., people would have to electively choose to accept the initially worthless currency to bootstrap the community/market). Circles has issues but it is inspiring and thought-provoking to read, at least.