Importance°: what about the ratio between the Stake Index, Activity Index and Transfer Activity index. 

In this post I want to talk about the following sentence:

U °OS begins with a problem statement, namely the decision trilemma. 

Assessment of entities to deal with can not simultaneously be effortless, quick and comprehensive. Despite the global digitization, the bottleneck of the digital economy is in collecting and processing the information to make a decision that requires trust.

So U°OS is built to bring universal, distributed and scalable reputation system to the web. In this way, U°OS enables people and organizations to make comprehensive one-touch decisions that require trust.

An important mechanism in the technology is the DPoI Consensus Algorithm:

Delegated-Proof-of-Importance (DPoI) consensus algorithm integrates the concept of Delegated-Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) with the idea that social interactions naturally generate economic activity between individuals or organizations.
Importance (and thus, influence) of an individual/organization for a network is achieved by the value they produce for others along with the amount of their stake in the network.

I think it’s about time that social interactions should generate economic activity between individuals or organizations. Due to the implementation of dynamic emission, another important aspect, you are rewarded for the value you create for the network and its members (by upvoting content, leaving reviews, trusting other people, etc.). 

But here comes my question: why the team has decided that Importance° is 80% Stake Index? To me this seems disproportionate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with this algorithm, the social efforts of a full year (creating and upvoting content, leaving reviews, connecting with the community, etc.) are worth less than pushing one single button, purchasing a large amount of UOS and then using them as staked UOS. 

If you look at the importance° this way, it's a lot harder to determine who is reliable, especially for someone who is new to a community or shows a beginning interest in an organization.

A little reductive, but still... There isn't much difference then compared to the non-digital world. The wealthy are in charge and remain at the top of the ladder. Being wealthy doesn’t of course mean that you cannot be trusted, but we can no longer speak of one-touch decisions here. Following the example of online influencers, companies can easily support profiles and steer them in a certain direction. Thus to have an overall picture, you should again collect extra data: social history, which connections are made, transfer activity, etc. This does not benefit the user-friendliness or usability of importance°.

What could be useful is to display the social activity score, in addition to the importance score. You could even add by how many people the profile is trusted. In this way newcomers get a broader picture of the profile involved and how the overall importance° was achieved.

If U°OS is built to collect and process the information to make a decision that requires trust, then importance° is pretty easy to manipulate at the moment due to the ratio between the stake index, activity index and transfer activity index. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Playing a bit devil's advocate here, but I feel that if U°OS really wants to be the standard for evaluation of trustworthiness on the emerging decentralized web, these kind of questions have to be asked.