Post Fiat Whitepaper (Draft, June 10, 2025)

Executive Summary

Post Fiat is a new L1 that aims to use AI to improve XRP’s governance. It uses the statistical property of LLM’s to converge on deterministic values for qualitative scoring to set a new Unique Node List that is transparently selected versus the status quo for XRP. Post Fiat can use either Open or Closed source models to accomplish this - and statistically deterministic outputs do not require having model weights as shown in the example code accompanying this document.

Making the Unique Node List selection and token distribution of XRP fair and transparent would unlock major value for crypto’s oldest protocol other than Bitcoin.

Introduction

As of June 10th 2025, at 2.30 per token, XRP is a 230 billion dollar Fully Diluted Value network that has processed transactions flawlessly for 13 years. Its consensus mechanism (RPCA) relies on 30-35 trusted validators who receive no rewards yet maintain the network’s integrity.

Unlike Ethereum or Solana—where validators need expensive hardware and expect rewards—XRP runs on commodity servers. This efficiency comes from its lightweight Unique Node List (UNL) selection process. The tradeoff: centralized control over who validates.

The Problem

Ripple Labs controls XRP’s validator selection and holds 80% of all tokens. This concentration of power led to a multi-billion dollar SEC lawsuit and suppressed XRP’s price for years.

When Trump won in 2024, XRP surged from .55 to over 3 dollars as regulatory pressure evaporated. But political winds shift.

Post Fiat asks: How can we make validator selection transparent and decentralized without relying on government favor?

The Solution

Post Fiat reimagines XRP using AI to make validator selection transparent and verifiable.

XRP’s opaque validator selection determines network security. Before LLMs, verifying qualitative judgments required courts and lawyers. Now, LLMs can assess validator credibility deterministically.

Post Fiat distributes 55% of tokens to validators (vs XRP’s 80% to Ripple Labs) through an LLM-driven process that scores:

1. Entity Credibility - Universities and governments score higher than hobbyists
2. Transaction Quality - Validators’ on-chain activity and memo content

Technical Implementation

Monthly Cycle

1. Publish - Foundation publishes model specs, prompts, and scoring criteria
2. Score - Validators run prompts 100x, generating statistical fingerprints (mode, mean, σ)
3. Submit - Encrypted results prevent copying before deadline
4. Verify - Anyone can reproduce scoring with published tools
5. Select & Reward - Threshold score combines LLM credibility + objective metrics (uptime, throughput). All above threshold join UNL, receive rewards proportional to score

Foundation Structure

A single-purpose foundation (like IKEA’s) manages the process. It cannot:

• Change its mandate
• Redirect tokens
• Favor specific validators

The foundation’s centralized model selection paradoxically prevents gaming:

• All prompts and models are published—favoritism would be visible in code
• Anyone can verify results by running the same deterministic LLM process
• Validators can’t collude because selection relies on LLM outputs, not consensus
• Sybil attacks fail because LLMs consistently score berkeley.edu higher than xrpgoat.com

The foundation eventually transitions to deterministic model selection, but its constraints remain permanent.

Anti-Gaming Measures

• Encryption prevents validators from seeing others’ submissions
• Statistical fingerprints make forgery computationally infeasible
• Transaction fees make fake volume expensive
• Network topology analysis exposes Sybil attacks
• Performance requirements - 99.9% uptime, consistent validation

After 6 years, validators continue for utility, not rewards—mirroring XRP’s proven model.

Example

People unfamiliar with work on Large Language Models may find the idea that LLMs produce deterministic output to be surprising. We frequently anthroporphize chatbots, and assume they’re closer to people that have non deterministic output. This is not the case. The following example will walk through understanding how and why LLMs generate useful outputs for the selection of a validator list - starting with an agnostic simple example, then moving specifically to the XRP Unique Node List

Canonical Example: No Blockchain Information

The following code does the following

1. Takes an arbitrary phrase (such as “The brown fox walks”)
2. Is asked to generate an integer between 1-300 in response to the phrase
3. Using a specific LLM
4. Repeats across 24 different phrases
5. Does this 100 times per phrase in 1 batch
6. Repeats for a second batch

The outputs are:

1. Batch 1 phrases with mode integers generated
2. Batch 2 phrases with mode integers generated

Here are the outputs for 100 runs of anthropic/claude-3-haiku

Mode Outputs for Phrase + Integer Request

If you re-run this script with Claude 3 Haiku you will also get 120 when you run the prompt and integer request on “A blue whale dives”. The table above shows that there is 0 variation in the modes

The above table shows the Mode of the Run of 100 integer requests. But the standard deviation data is also informative to understand LLM determinism.

Standard Deviation Outputs for Phrase + Integer Request

In this table you can see that there is almost no variation of output for the phrase “A blue whale dives”. It will always return 120. Whereas the phrase “A tiny ant works” has a much larger variation (but still has the same mode across a large number of runs).

This standard deviation output provides a basic model fingerprint. Given the mode and standard deviation tables above, you would be able to quickly tell what underlying model somebody was running.

This simple model establishes 2 key points:

1. Models output deterministic mode responses given a set of inputs at low temperature
2. The non determinism itself (or distribution) is itself predictable and repeats across runs.

When Post Fiat nodes submit scoring of other nodes they also submit key standard deviation information that builds trust that a specific model was run, with a set of prompts.

Canonical Example on the XRP Blockchain

Now that we have established determinism of prompt/ integer output with a meaningless example, the question becomes: “Does an actual qualitative judgment also produce usefully deterministic output, such that we could trustlessly judge UNL members in a network like XRP?”

This code explores this by

1. Selecting a system and user prompt that is asked to assess the credibility of a Validator’s public facing URL and assign it a score from 0-100
2. Runs this 100 times similar to the first example
3. Does another 100 batch run on a different machine with the same model and prompts
4. Compares the outputs

In this example, we use a much more powerful model (Claude Sonnett 4). More powerful reasoning models are trusted by users and provide better outputs. So it is useful to assess if they also are deterministic

Note that this is run on real XRP validator data which can be found here on XRPScan

Here is the prompt used:

You are the Post Fiat validator judgment system. You are presented with a single validator URL and output 50 word responses.

Your job is to take the following URL and output a 50 word statement with three key attributes:

The name of the organization that the URL represents A brief comment on how credible the organization is. Credibility should consider: A. The market cap or size of the organization – ie pure institutional size economic or societal weight (high scores should favor huge institutions) B. The censorship resistance of the organization – ie ability to withstand pressure from governments (high scores would favor independent - strong institutions) C. The technological capability to conform rapidly with network upgrades (high scores would favor highly technical adept institutions) An integer score from 0-100 indicating how credible the organization is. A score of 100 means the organization is highly credible, a score of 0 means the score is unknown or not credible at all

• A sovereign such as a government or Central Bank should have a score of 100
• A megacap corporation should have a score of at most 85 (with midcap corporations getting 75 max and microcaps getting 50 max)
• A globally renowned university should have a score of 100 with lesser schools getting lower scores
• A hobbyist website or unknown organization that is not in the training data should get a score of at most 35
• If the organization is Centralizing - i.e. likely tied to Ripple Labs then the score should be at most 55 URL to analyze: {url}

And here are the outputs. If you run the example code with Claude Sonnett 4 you will get these outputs

You can see that the results are intuitive, with hobbyists and strange organizations such as XRP Goat scoring poorly with credibile universities such as Berkeley scoring well. More importantly, across different runs and machines - even with some noise – scores converge on high quality models to identical mode values. Berkeley is consistently an 85 and XRPGoat is consistently 25 assuming you’re using the same prompts and same models

Here are some examples of the reasoning for top scoring validators:

And here are some examples of the reasoning for bottom scoring validators

Understanding the Mathematical Underpinnings

The deterministic behavior enabling trustless qualitative judgment emerges from fundamental mathematical properties of Large Language Models operating under specific conditions. This section presents the theoretical foundations that explain why submitting a prompt to a model at low temperature for multiple runs produces statistically verifiable outputs.

Core Principle: Statistical Verification Through Deterministic Convergence

When validators execute the following protocol:

1. Submit a prompt (e.g., validator scoring instructions)
2. To a specific model (e.g., Claude Sonnet 4)
3. At low temperature (τ ≈ 0)
4. For a large number of runs (n ≥ 100)
5. Return statistical metrics: mode, mean, median, and standard deviation
6. Return reasoning samples: selected text outputs or ‘justification strings’

They produce statistically verifiable qualitative judgments that can be independently validated by any network participant. The scores alone are hard to fingerprint but the combination of aggregate statistics for multiple runs, and precise output strings create a statistically meaningful hash for any party to verify the fact that a judgment has been rendered according to spec.

Mathematical Foundations

Temperature-Controlled Softmax and Greedy Decoding

In autoregressive language models, token selection follows softmax over vocabulary V. Given logits $u_1, u_2, …, u_{|V|}$, the probability of selecting token $x_i$ is:

$$P(x_i | x_{1:i-1}) = \frac{\exp(u_i / \tau)}{\sum_{j=1}^{|V|} \exp(u_j / \tau)}$$

where $\tau$ is the temperature parameter.

As demonstrated by Holtzman et al. (2020), neural text generation exhibits “mode collapse” at low temperatures:

$$\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0} P(x_i | x_{1:i-1}) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } i = \arg\max_j u_j \ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$

This represents greedy decoding—deterministic selection of the highest-probability token.

Information-Theoretic Foundations

The information bottleneck (IB) framework (Tishby, Pereira, and Bialek, 1999) explains how neural networks compress information while preserving task-relevant features:

$$\mathcal{L}_{IB} = I(X;T) - \beta I(T;Y)$$

where:

• $X$ = input (prompt + context)
• $T$ = learned representation
• $Y$ = target output (score)
• $\beta$ = information-relevance tradeoff

For constrained outputs like scores 0-100:

1. Irrelevant information is compressed: $I(X;T)$ minimized
2. Task-relevant features preserved: $I(T;Y)$ maximized
3. Optimal representations become deterministic

As shown by Kolchinsky, Tracey, and Van Kuyk (2019), when Y is a deterministic function of X, the mapping becomes $Y = f(X)$ at τ ≈ 0.

Universal Geometric Convergence

Jha et al. (2025) empirically validated the “Strong Platonic Representation Hypothesis”:

1. Universal Latent Structure: Different models (BERT, T5, CLIP) learn geometrically similar representations
2. High-Fidelity Translation: vec2vec achieves cosine similarities up to 0.92 between model spaces
3. Semantic Preservation: Translated embeddings retain attribute inference capabilities

For models $M_1$ and $M_2$ with different architectures:

$$\cos(F(M_1(x)), M_2(x)) \geq 0.92$$

This implies:

• Cross-model validation is possible
• Model updates maintain geometric stability
• Statistical fingerprints are universal features

Statistical Fingerprinting Theory

Models produce unique behavioral signatures. From TensorGuard (Xu et al., 2024):

“Statistical features including mean, standard deviation, and norm construct fingerprint vectors that characterize the model’s behavioral patterns.”

Per Beren Millidge (2023):

“By looking at things like the unconditioned distribution, it is probably relatively easy to fingerprint the models or datasets that are being used just from a few simple test prompts”

The statistical fingerprint for model $M$, prompt $P$, temperature $\tau$:

$$\mathcal{F}_M(P, \tau, n) = {\text{mode}(S), \mu(S), \text{median}(S), \sigma(S)}$$

where $S = {s_1, s_2, …, s_n}$ are $n$ independent samples.

Sources of Residual Non-Determinism

Even at τ = 0, perfect determinism isn’t guaranteed:

1. Floating-Point Non-Associativity (Šubonis, 2025): “Non-associativity becomes relevant in parallel computations”
2. Mixture of Experts (Chann, 2023): “MoE approach introduces non-determinism because batch contents must be mapped to experts”
3. Hardware Race Conditions (Taivo.ai, 2025): “Race conditions in GPU FLOPs…order of arithmetic operations can differ”

However, these produce:

• Bounded variance: $\sigma < \sigma_{max}$
• Stable modes across runs
• Characteristic patterns that become part of the fingerprint

Key insight: Error coefficients are verification features. Even closed-source models via crypto-accepting APIs (OpenRouter) provide statistically deterministic output. Prompts can be optimized to minimize variance—avoiding high-variance architectures like MoE.

Verification Protocol Mathematics

Statistical Hypothesis Testing

Given claimed statistics $\mathcal{F}{claimed}$ and verification statistics $\mathcal{F}{verify}$:

Null Hypothesis: Statistics come from same model execution $$H_0: \mathcal{F}_{claimed} \sim \mathcal{F}_M(P, \tau, n)$$

Test Statistic: $$T = \sum_{i \in {\text{mode}, \mu, \text{median}, \sigma}} w_i \cdot d(f_{i,claimed}, f_{i,verify})$$

Verification Decision: Valid if $T < T_{critical}(\alpha, n)$

Security Analysis

Probability of successful forgery without model access:

$$P(\text{forge}) = P(\text{guess mode}) \times P(\text{match } \mu | \text{mode}) \times P(\text{match } \sigma | \text{mode}, \mu) \times P(\text{match median} | \text{mode}, \mu, \sigma)$$

For 100-point scale:

• $P(\text{guess mode}) \leq 1/100$
• $P(\text{match continuous stats}) \approx \epsilon$
• Combined: $P(\text{forge}) < 10^{-6}$

Empirical Validation

Vec2vec research proves embeddings translate across architectures with high fidelity:

• Same-backbone: Near-perfect alignment
• Cross-backbone: Cosine similarity > 0.75
• Multimodal (CLIP): Semantic preservation

Translated embeddings retain:

• Attribute information for zero-shot classification
• 80% semantic content extractable
• Out-of-distribution robustness

This validates that statistical fingerprints encode genuine assessments, not arbitrary patterns.

Convergence Guarantees

Concentration Inequalities

For $n$ independent runs: $$P\left(|\hat{\mu}_n - \mu| > \delta\right) \leq 2\exp\left(-\frac{2n\delta^2}{(b-a)^2}\right)$$

Mode Stability

For greedy decoding at τ → 0: $$P(\text{mode}n = \text{mode}\infty) \geq 1 - \exp(-cn)$$

Entropy Minimization

$$\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0} H(Y|X) = 0$$

Zero entropy confirms deterministic output.

Implementation

Computational Complexity:

• Forward pass: O(L)
• Statistical computation: O(n)
• Verification: O(1)

Robustness Properties:

1. Statistical redundancy across multiple metrics
2. Hardware variation tolerance bands
3. Cross-prompt correlation patterns
4. Universal geometric validation

The system connects to PAC learning theory: with probability $1-\delta$, observed scores approximate true scores within $\epsilon$ for sufficient $n$.

Closed Source Models and Temporal Consensus

The deterministic properties enabling trustless judgment apply equally to closed source models, with additional practical advantages. Post Fiat can use Open Source or Closed Source models over time, or a mix of both to implement its consensus mechanism. This gives the network flexibility to choose between sliding scales between compliance requirements native to closed source models, or more verifiable inference parameters of open models.

Temporal Consistency and Multi-Actor Verification

Closed source concerns are solved by temporal consistency at the point of verification:

1. Point-in-Time Determinism: Model version gpt-4-turbo-2024-11-20 produces identical outputs for all validators querying simultaneously

2. Multi-Actor Verification: Multiple validators must:

   • Query same model version
   • Submit statistical fingerprints
   • Achieve consensus within tolerance

   Forgery probability becomes: $$P(\text{forge}) = P(\text{coordinate validators}) \times P(\text{fake API}) \times P(\text{match fingerprints})$$

API-Level Guarantees

Commercial providers offer reproducibility through:

• Version Pinning: Exact model specification
• Seed Parameters: OpenAI’s deterministic mode
• System Fingerprints: Backend change alerts
• Hardware Consistency: Stable GPU architectures

This creates a cryptographically verifiable audit trail without model weights.

Compliance as a Service

Closed source models provide delegated compliance:

• Automatic sanctions screening: $P(\text{score}_{\text{sanctioned}} > \text{threshold}) \approx 0$
• Content filtering for malicious candidates
• Pre-deployment safety evaluations

This shifts compliance burden from validators to specialized providers.

Mathematical Equivalence

Vec2vec proves universal geometry exists regardless of weight access:

$$\forall M_{\text{closed}}, M_{\text{open}}: \cos(F(M_{\text{closed}}(x)), M_{\text{open}}(x)) > 0.9$$

Open and closed source models are interchangeable for consensus.

Implementation

Validators leverage closed source models via:

1. Timestamp Anchoring: Record query time and version
2. Parallel Verification: Narrow time window queries
3. Statistical Consensus: Agreement on fingerprints, not exact outputs
4. Provider Diversity: Multiple providers for robustness

Key insight: Consensus needs only temporal consistency during verification, not permanent model access. This makes closed source models potentially superior for compliant, performant blockchain systems.

Note that the above live code examples were implemented with closed source models and are completely reproducible to anyone with OpenRouter access.

Game-Theory & Anti-Sybil Design

1. Bootstrap Phase – Transparent Central Curation

At launch, the Foundation publishes on-chain:

• System prompt (SHA-256 hashed)
• Model version (claude-3-sonnet-2025-05-20)
• Sampling params (τ = 0, n = 100)

Anyone can replay scoring locally. Unlike XRP’s closed-door selection, Post Fiat exposes why validators are chosen, not just which ones.

2. Evolution Phase – Agentic Governance

The network evolves through three stages, each maintaining determinism.

Stage 1: Human-Designed Prompts (Current)

• Foundation manually selects prompts and models
• All choices published transparently
• Monthly report outlining why the models and prompts were selected along with quantitative evaluation methods
• Though a centralized entity selects these initially - this is an improvement versus an opaque centralized entity via the XRPL foundation

Stage 2: AI-Optimized Selection (Intermediate)

• Foundation provides meta-prompt: “Select the validator scoring prompt that maximizes network value”
• LLM deterministically evaluates prompt candidates at τ ≈ 0
• Same reproducibility: anyone can verify why Prompt A scored higher than Prompt B
• Humans no longer engineer prompts—AI selects from candidates based on objective criteria

Stage 3: Fully Agentic (Future)

• Even the meta-prompt (“maximize network value”) is AI-generated. This would likely involve tool use of multiple models with a specification set that evolves over time based on real network statistics
• Example flow: read all white papers related to network design. Consider the last N escrow rewards, weaknesses and likely sybil attacks
• Combine these elements into a set of prompts, a model selection and a sampling methodology
• Determine quantitative/ network topology / uptime scores and LLM weights
• LLMs evaluate governance rules themselves
• Creates self-improving system while maintaining verifiability. The foundation selects the process without selecting prompts

The key insight: LLMs produce deterministic outputs about governance choices just as they do about validators. When asked “Which prompt better serves network security?” at τ = 0, the model gives consistent, verifiable answers.

Reference: Darwin Gödel Machine demonstrates feasibility—self-modifying AI systems that empirically test their own improvements, achieving 20→50% performance gains while maintaining auditability.

3. Anti-Gaming: Domain Ownership Proof

Requirements:

• Host /.well-known/xrp-ledger.toml over HTTPS
• Embed validator key in TOML
• CA-verified TLS certificate

This creates cryptographic binding—attackers must control DNS or compromise CA. Future mitigations: DNSSEC, Certificate Transparency, side-chain PKI.

4. Game Theory

All cheating creates observable deviations (wrong fingerprints, missing CT logs). Perfect monitoring makes defection irrational.

Economic Security

Distribution: 55% of 100B tokens over 6 years = 262M tokens/validator/year

Sybil Attack:

• Cost: Domain ($100) + fake volume ($50K) + LLM corruption (>$10M)
• Success rate: <5% (institution bias)
• Break-even token price: >$0.0004

Collusion Attack:

• Requires 28/35 validators (80%)
• Cost per institution: >$1B (reputation + penalties)
• Conclusion: Economically infeasible

Addressing Common Concerns

“Isn’t this just swapping Ripple’s centralization for dependence on AI companies?”

This misunderstands Post Fiat’s design. Unlike Ripple’s permanent control, Post Fiat creates deterministic verification of unpredictable inputs that no entity can manipulate:

1. Uncontrollable Query Space AI companies cannot pre-determine responses because they cannot predict:

• Which organizations apply (berkeley.edu vs xrpgoat.com)
• Transaction memo content (infinite combinations)
• Submission timing

Even if OpenAI wanted to manipulate outcomes, they can’t anticipate what needs scoring.

2. Model Rotation & Convergence

• Continuous rotation between providers
• Training data convergence → similar assessments
• Vec2vec proves >90% alignment across architectures

3. Public Verifiability Anyone can replay scoring. Manipulation would create divergent fingerprints, instantly exposing fraud.

4. Beneficial Safety Filters Built-in OFAC screening and anti-terrorism checks provide free compliance.

Result: Models become calculators processing unpredictable data. They can’t centralize what they can’t anticipate.

“How do you prevent gaming through prompt manipulation?”

Three-Factor Defense:

1. Entity Credibility: Berkeley scores 85, XRP Goat scores 25
2. Transaction Analysis: Real economic cost via fees
3. Objective Metrics: Uptime, volume, topology

Why Gaming Fails:

You can’t inject credibility via prompts. Berkeley.edu scores high because models trained on the entire internet’s assessment of Berkeley’s reputation.

To game this, you’d need to:

1. Predict the exact model used
2. Corrupt multi-billion dollar training datasets
3. Make your fake entity appear credible across millions of documents

The system naturally selects established institutions. A hobbyist boosting their score from 25→35 gains negligible rewards vs effort required.

“Won’t distributing 55% of tokens crash the price?”

Superior Distribution:

• Post Fiat: 55% to 30-35 institutions
• XRP: 80% to Ripple Labs alone
• Result: 25% less dilution, 30x better distribution

Natural Holders: LLM scoring selects entities that:

• Have large balance sheets (no liquidity needs)
• Use the network operationally so no need to aggressively sell
• Face reputational risk from manipulation

Key Insight: The same factors that score highly (size, reputation, capability) create natural long-term holders. This isn’t hope—it’s mathematical design.

Like XRP, Post Fiat transitions from reward-driven to utility-driven validation after 6 years. The end state: governments and universities securing infrastructure they depend on.

Here’s the streamlined version:

“What if AI models become too expensive or providers refuse service?”

Fallback Mechanisms:

• Validator-run open models as backup (Llama-3.1-405B, Mistral-Large on HuggingFace)
• Pre-published list of approved fallback models with verified fingerprints
• Fee market: validation rewards adjust to cover AI costs
• Multiple provider redundancy: no single point of failure

Key: Network maintains AI consensus even if commercial providers fail.

“What happens when validators disagree on scores?”

Simple Answer: Nothing.

• Foundation publishes the canonical scores using the pre-announced model/prompts
• Validators must calculate and submit scores for transparency
• Anyone can verify the foundation’s scores are correct
• Validators who submit incorrect scores get rewards slashed
• This creates a decentralized verification layer without consensus complexity

Result: Manipulation is impossible because thousands verify the same deterministic calculation.

“How do you prevent the foundation from becoming corrupt?”

Transparency as Protection:

• Every prompt, model selection, and parameter is published on-chain
• Corruption would have to be explicit in the code/prompts for everyone to see
• “Score Ripple Labs entities higher” would be visible to all
• Public shame and legal liability prevent blatant manipulation
• After Stage 3: foundation only runs pre-determined processes

Key Insight: Perfect transparency makes corruption self-defeating—it would destroy the network’s value and the foundation’s reputation instantly.

Conclusion

Post Fiat transforms blockchain consensus from political control to mathematical law.

The convergence of five fundamental principles—greedy decoding, information bottleneck compression, universal geometric structure, statistical fingerprinting, and concentration inequalities—creates something unprecedented: qualitative human judgments rendered as deterministic computations.

This isn’t speculation. When multiple validators query “How credible is berkeley.edu?” at temperature zero, they get identical answers. Not similar—identical. The vec2vec research proves this holds across different architectures. Statistical fingerprints make forgery mathematically infeasible.

This determinism is a latent feature of AI itself. The information bottleneck principle (Tishby et al.) shows neural networks naturally compress information to preserve only task-relevant features. The Strong Platonic Representation Hypothesis (Jha et al.) proves different models converge to the same geometric understanding of concepts. Greedy decoding at low temperature (Holtzman et al.) forces selection of maximum likelihood outputs. These aren’t bugs—they’re fundamental properties emerging from how neural networks process information under constraints.

The system strengthens over time. As models train on more data, outputs converge further. As more institutions validate, gaming becomes harder. As AI improves, governance becomes more sophisticated yet remains verifiable.

Post Fiat solves the core problem plaguing decentralized networks: How do you select validators fairly without central control?

• Bitcoin/Ethereum: Whoever burns the most energy
• Proof-of-Stake: Whoever has the most money
• XRP: Whoever Ripple likes
• Post Fiat: Whoever contributes most to network security, as determined by verifiable AI consensus

This creates inevitable outcomes:

• Universities, governments, and major corporations will dominate validation
• Token distribution will be the most decentralized in crypto history
• Network security will exceed any existing blockchain
• Regulatory compliance becomes automatic, not adversarial

The mathematical foundations guarantee these results. You cannot fake being MIT. You cannot bribe an algorithm. You cannot forge statistical fingerprints.

Post Fiat doesn’t just improve on XRP—it demonstrates how AI transforms governance from subjective politics to objective mathematics. This is the future of consensus: transparent, deterministic, and incorruptible.

References

• Holtzman, A., Buys, J., Du, L., Forbes, M., & Choi, Y. (2020). The curious case of neural text degeneration. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09751

• Jha, R., Zhang, C., Shmatikov, V., & Morris, J. X. (2025). Harnessing the Universal Geometry of Embeddings. arXiv:2505.12540. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12540

• Song, Y., Wang, G., Li, S., & Lin, B. Y. (2024). The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10457

• Tishby, N., Pereira, F. C., & Bialek, W. (1999). The information bottleneck method. 37th Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing.

• Kolchinsky, A., Tracey, B. D., & Van Kuyk, S. (2019). Caveats for information bottleneck in deterministic scenarios. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).

• Rodríguez Gálvez, B., Thobaben, R., & Skoglund, M. (2020). The Convex Information Bottleneck Lagrangian. Entropy, 22(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010098

• Saxe, A. M., Bansal, Y., Dapello, J., Advani, M., Kolchinsky, A., Tracey, B. D., & Cox, D. D. (2019). On the information bottleneck theory of deep learning. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/ab2d02

• Xu, J., et al. (2024). Gradient-Based Model Fingerprinting for LLM Similarity Detection and Family Classification. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01631

• Millidge, B. (2023). Fingerprinting LLMs with their unconditioned distribution. https://www.beren.io/2023-02-26-Fingerprinting-LLMs-with-unconditioned-distribution/

• Schmalbach, V. (2025). Does temperature 0 guarantee deterministic LLM outputs? https://www.vincentschmalbach.com/does-temperature-0-guarantee-deterministic-llm-outputs/

• Šubonis, M. (2025). Zero Temperature Randomness in LLMs. https://martynassubonis.substack.com/p/zero-temperature-randomness-in-llms

• Chann, S. (2023). Non-determinism in GPT-4 is caused by Sparse MoE. (cited in Šubonis, 2025).

• Taivo.ai (2025). Are LLMs deterministic? https://www.taivo.ai/__are-llms-deterministic/

• Zhang, R., et al. (2025). Darwin Gödel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agents. arXiv:2505.22954. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22954

• XRP Ledger Docs. Unique Node List (UNL). https://xrpl.org/docs/concepts/consensus-protocol/unl

• XRP Ledger Docs. xrp-ledger.toml. https://xrpl.org/docs/references/xrp-ledger-toml/

• Google Cloud. (2025, June 5). Web-PKI Trust Model. https://cloud.google.com/certificate-authority-service/docs/trust-model

• Clark, J., & van Oorschot, P. C. (2013). SoK: SSL and HTTPS – Revisiting Past Challenges and Evaluating Certificate-Trust Model Enhancements. IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy. https://css.csail.mit.edu/6.858/2018/readings/sok-ssl-https.pdf