This is the fifth post in a series of analysis I have conducted on the current Fractal Democracy protocol. The previous post can be found here.

Attack vector 1: Noise

The attacker increases noise with the goal of generating confusion and, ideally, ensuing paralysis. Amid the confusion, an idea or direction is inoculated enthusiastically in the minds of the unaware members; a change in the protocol, for example. This just introduced change is planned so that when conducted by the target community, it opens the door for a whole new set of other vulnerabilities.

The inoculation of the idea is facilitated if there is previous control of some centralized communications platform and it works much better if the target community doesn't have a set of clear and strict values by which to guide itself.

So, a FD system can be controlled in pretty much the same way that whole societies are subjugated today: through the molding the minds of its members by media plus a set of distorted values.

So, I suggest that the protocol designers reduce noise at every possible level in the protocol. This way, it will be easier for the community to detect changes on it and defend itself whenever necessary.

Attack vector 2: Data analytics.

The fact that the community has decided to video record all his interactions presents a major source of data whose value may be unparalleled. AIs could be used to read members language, both verbal and otherwise. Verbal expressions provide information about education, area of expertise, socio-economical status, general intelligence and much more. On the other hand, meta verbal expressions such as accent provide information about place of birth, age, sex, etc. Then there are subtle cues in non-verbal language which also provides a bunch of valuable information such as assertiveness, timidity, openness, agreeableness, extroversion, etc.

With the above data collected, the attacker (which doesn't have to be a single individual) sets out a plan to trick certain high profile members in the community and increase the probability of getting higher amounts of respect and, eventually, qualify to be one of the blockchain's block producers.

On a less ambitious variant, the attackers use the above collected data to identify controversial or polarizing topics inside the community. Then, they proceed to attend the breakout rooms in order to use the topics and reduce the quality of the consensus.

Attack vector 3: Velocity of accurate value discovery.

Consider two competing communities, one of which, for whatever reason, is able to reach higher quality consensus faster than the other. For example, consider fractal democracies A and B and suppose that B is more efficient discovering and assessing quality contributions than A. Now suppose that these two communities are interested in controlling whatever variable -dominance of a market segment, for example.

Then the members of community B lure valuable members of A out of A and into B. Such a feat reduces even more the velocity of accurate value discovery of A and induces other members of to leave. This creates a vicious cycle that ends with A being depleted of human power.