The MIR Constitution

Our Purpose

MIR exists to restore continuity to the internet.

When people move between platforms, their history usually resets to zero. MIR provides a neutral way for platforms to learn whether a participant has existing history elsewhere, without revealing identity or personal details.

It does not answer who someone is, why they act, or what should be done about them.

What MIR Is — and Is Not

MIR is a portable participation history layer.

MIR is not:

• A trust score
• A credit score
• A fraud detection system
• An identity provider
• A profiling or surveillance tool
• A decision engine

MIR provides context, not conclusions.
Decisions always remain with the platforms that use it.

Neutrality by Design

Neutrality is not a marketing position—it is a design constraint.

MIR is intentionally:

• Non-judgmental
• Non-authoritative
• Non-competitive
• Non-extractive

MIR does not rate, rank, or label people.
It exists to preserve history without ownership.

Privacy First, Always

MIR is built to minimize data exposure.

• MIR does not expose names, emails, or real-world identity
• MIR does not share personal details between platforms
• MIR does not track behavior outside of explicitly submitted participation events

Users choose whether to link their participation history across platforms.
Opt-in is fundamental to how MIR works.

History, Not Judgment

MIR history indicates presence of participation, not quality or character.

History tiers (0, 1, 2, 3) describe how much history exists—not whether someone is good, bad, trusted, or risky.

Platform Autonomy

MIR does not tell platforms what to do.

Each platform decides:

• How to interpret MIR signals
• When to use them
• What actions, if any, to take

MIR provides shared context while respecting local rules, policies, and values.

Growth With Care

MIR is designed to grow slowly and deliberately.

Correct use matters more than rapid adoption.
A small number of aligned partners is better than broad misuse.

Trust compounds over time.

What MIR Will Never Do

These are structural commitments, not aspirations.

MIR will never:

• Interpret what continuity means. The moment MIR implies "extensive = safe" or "none = risky," it becomes a classifier, not a recorder.
• Provide recommended thresholds or decision rules. If MIR ships "deny if tier < X" templates, it effectively decides outcomes. Platforms must make their own policies.
• Aggregate claims into scores. Any single-number summary becomes the identity. If there's one number that's easiest to use, that's what everyone will use. MIR refuses to provide it.
• Become an enforcement oracle. MIR will never participate in punishment ("block this user everywhere"). Platforms enforce; MIR remembers.
• Use virtue language for tiers. Terms like "trusted," "verified," "good standing," or "suspicious" turn tiers into character judgments. Tiers describe event counts, not moral status.
• Record judgments as facts. When a platform asserts "this user violated policy," MIR may record that the assertion exists—but never that it's true. Claims are attributed, not endorsed.
• Build profiles. MIR has no bios, no badges, no place to present yourself. The moment users can perform identity, optimization pressure appears. MIR stays boring.

An Explicit Boundary

MIR is voluntary.

A neutral, opt-in history layer is ethical.
A coercive one is not.