Historically, various encryption technologies such as blind signature and group signature have been widely utilized . Under these circumstances, QURAS blockchain adopted zero-knowledge proof and ring signature as privacy technologies. With these developments, the expansion of use cases for blockchain can be expected. The two privacy technologies can be used for different purposes in accordance with the user’s needs. Zero-knowledgeproof is suitable for shielding data, while ring signature is suitable for privacy protection within a group such as electronic voting, smart city, and smart grid. While utilizing the zero-knowledge proof, blockchain users can leverage the feature that can prove a group member’s signature without requiringthe member to identify themselves. In addition, when using zero-knowledge proof and ring signature, adopting digital ID allows for compliance with laws/regulations and use cases in the real world. Originally, the blockchain platform had no administrators due to decentralization, however by adding administrators to ring signature in the blockchain platform, it is made possible to handle centralized-type use cases. QURAS applies the idea of the common good in economics. Based on this idea, the system is established to distribute smart contracts’ transaction feesto projects that use the QURAS platform. Despite the violent fluctuation ofthe cryptocurrency market, QURAS lowers the risk of improper operation of projects and facilitates the timely completion of project schedules. The continuous support for those projects that use QURAS are provided ona protocol basis, which is believed to increase the overall value of QURAS in the end. In summary, QURAS’s philosophy is reflected in the system design whichbenefits the individual and the collective- all while pursuing what is good forthe entire QURAS ecosystem or in other words, pursuing the common good.

According to Aristotle, private interest is only pursued in the deviant state, while under an ideal national administration, common good that benefits theentire population is pursued. Aristotle’s political philosophy goes on to explainthat every community where people live together is organized for some kind of good as its purpose, and the best community that aims for the best good is a nation. Such a nation is created for people to survive, but it exists more for people to live better. Politics of Common Good - Masao Kikuchi

The definition of the common good depends on an individual’s communityand background. However, for a community to be maintained, common traditions, opinions, and perspectives exist which must be taken into consideration as people carefully deliberate in an effort to create commonbenefits rather than individual benefits. The common good is not meantto deny individual rights and freedom; rather, it is meant to complete them. In modern time, it is a natural progression that this society accepts being a pluralistic society in which various cultures and values co-exist and personal rights are respected, not disregarded. . QURAS’s blockchain is asmart contract platform. If the idea of the common good is applied to the platform, it is necessary to consider users who remit funds, organizations that operate projects on QURAS and their project users, QURAS’ holdersand market makers, QURAS’ consensus nodes, QURAS platform supportersand any influence the blockchain may give to the society. On the platform,it is also necessary to have a system in place that offers proper incentivedesigns and options that balance everyone’s rights and benefits. This preventsa community operating on the common good from being an exclusive community that forces values on community members.

In addition, anonymous technologies QURAS supports such as zero-knowledge proof and ring signature protect privacy. However, due to the range of use extending from fund remittance only to smart contract, it is necessary to discuss a relationship between privacy and the common good while considering various impacts they may have. For example, when considering health data, it is necessary to have a careful discussion regarding personal benefits and the common goods. Whether or not health data is thepublic good or a public asset depends on the level of integrity of interested parties, but under ethical use by trustworthy public institutions, the level of the public good increases.

The public good was originated from the science of economics and often has the problem of freeloaders who benefit themselves from the interest ofgreater good such as national defense, parks, and radio waves. If the majority of people decides that free riding is rational, the supply of public assets will be significantly insufficient, and to resolve such issue, it is said that properincentives are necessary. Assuming that health data being used by a trusted public institution is considered a public asset, people would evaluate the importance of keeping their personal information private and compare it with the benefit they would get by giving it up. When they are given an option tohave a larger benefit by acting collaboratively with others rather than actingselfishly, they are believed to have better care, improved result and reducedcost in the end. On the other hand , the increase of interested parties may lead to the lowering of public trust. For example, when an insurance company refuses to allow a patient to purchase its health insurance because the patient refused to take a certain test in order to completely protect the privacy of his/her medical information, it may lead to lowering the performance of the company and enabling the provision of insurance to the society. Thus, it is necessary to carefully consider if public benefits gained by disclosing personalmedical information outweighs personal benefits.

Furthermore, accessibility has a large impact on the relationship between privacy and the common good. Taking the publication of bankruptcy information in the official gazette as an example, such information can beviewed on the internet by everyone including case numbers, names of the bankrupt (tradename) and addresses. This information is delicate personal information and may lead to a privacy issue. Historically speaking, as a punishment, the bankrupt were expected to receive harsh physical and mental burdens and endure humiliation as a debtor. Since this is not a personal bankruptcy and goes through a bankruptcy procedure in court, this should be known to the interested parties of the debtor and the debtor shall comply with collective discipline. On the other hand, in the world the internet, information can be accessed extremely easily and bankrupt information can be spread without limit. In this case, the problem is, even if a bankruptcy is sought and decided voluntarily, whether or not the bankrupt party will need to endure all of the above as a forever failure during the process of securing an opportunity for his or her economic reform shall be considered while balancing the benefit of the individual and a group. People make mistakesand failures are inevitable in life. There is a risk of bankruptcy for company operation due to a sudden change in the economic environment, and it is necessary to give such a business another chance to recover. Looking at the situation with this point of view, it gives rise to the idea of a right to be forgotten. These problems shall not be forgotten by debtors themselves, but their right to be forgotten by third parties shall also be respected. Ultimately there is still room for a discussion on the dilemma of how tobalance a group and an individual.

In summary, the balance between privacy and the common good is extremely delicate and it is important to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of eachaction. Depending on communities and issues, ways of solving problems and perspectives are different. That said, it is impossible to resolve problems onthe QURAS platform using a single approach and perspective. Rather, the platform aims for the common good by embracing a pluralistic society model and different perspectives, and by providing users with opportunities tochoose while growing to be a better platform.

Financing for most blockchain projects is done in cryptocurrency, not legal tender. Many projects that were financed in Ethereum at its highest pricerange, which exceeded $1,350 at one point, were heavily impacted when Ethereum’s price went under $100 at another point.

The purpose of financing includes securing fixed expenses such as theexpansion of head counts and offices. When the price of cryptocurrencydrops drastically, however, there may be cases wherein securing such fixed expenses becomes difficult. Financing in cryptocurrency has a riskthat the original roadmap will not go as scheduled. In addition to being compliant with laws/regulations, increasing the continuity of a project is an important requirement for cryptocurrency/blockchain projects to increase their reliability.

There is also the same risk when financing in Bitcoin and othercryptocurrencies. While having a risk of complicated international accounting and tax laws, risk-hedging requires a high level of decision-making skills. Even if using a legal tender that does not fluctuate, the flow- type of income will berequired for business continuity.

As a protocol to implement a smart contract, it is necessary to face such problems and take an approach to support project users. For more details on a protocol-based technical approach regarding this issue, please refer to 2.9. Distributing smart contracts’ transaction fees to project operators (or tokenmanagers) will be a big incentive for those managers to actually activate their own projects’ token economy, not to mention that the projects’ continuity canbe increased.

With the perspectives of sustainability, actions that seek short-term benefitand actions that are harmful to the society are closely related. If a short-term financing should be realized, there is a risk of causing a serious problem whenselling products without understanding its risks well. Using QURAS will exclude such risks by making it easier to have a best practice for a project that is based on a long-term strategy.

With QURAS, it is possible to create a protocol that balances individuals and groups based on the common good to make the entire ecosystem better. We don’t believe in preconditions that would put every individual benefitbehind, or preconditions for people to pursue only monetary and materialistic benefits. Using QURAS will create a virtuous circle wherein proper incentiveswill be given to ecosystem contributors and compensations for consensus nodes will increase in the end by increasing the overall transactions. Also, QURAS will take a realistic approach such as distributing transaction fees, just like POS that is planned as a future update.