companies and even countries can have credit scores, so it's not something that "only humans can enjoy".
>We should be able to spool up a persistent pseudonym that can have a credit score based solely on its selectively disclosed transaction history since inception.
Part of what gives credit scores value is that you only have one identity, so you can't create burner accounts and default all the loans on them.
>The market decides what score to give based whatever factor it feels relavant, which should result in abuse prevention over the long term.
The market will react by treating pseudonyms the same way websites treat tor exit nodes: with extreme suspicion. Using a pseudonym with little history and/or "real" identity tied to it would essentially put you in the "default imminent" category of credit ratings.
If new pseudonyms are treated with extreme suspicion then so be it, but there should be a way for the pseudonym to progress from there solely through transactional behavior.
Even if the amount of credit the market becomes comfortable with through this scheme is $100, that could make a big difference in developing countries.
If someone is operating under a pseudonym and can walk away from it, you're playing an iterated prisoner's dilemma where one party knows on what turn they will defect and the other doesn't.
With real identities, the iteration only ends in the death of one party, the timing of which is seldom known to anyone (although will statistically be taken into account).
Can an autonomous bot on some smart contract have a credit score? Why is credit a privilege only humans can enjoy?
We should be able to spool up a persistent pseudonym that can have a credit score based solely on its selectively disclosed transaction history since inception.
If we screw up the credit score of that pseudonym, we should be able to create another and another. The market decides what score to give based whatever factor it feels relavant, which should result in abuse prevention over the long term.