Love these provocations @Alanna.

To be specific, within the context of the social backup that @Kieran is currently building - that we have all be involved in researching, I am trying to understand what we mean by contract.

There are certain affordances which #ssb bearths (I think - this will need peer reviewing by @Dominic and others) - specifically

1. It is possible for people to be involved in being a 'holder-participant' without fear that if they lose their computer, they will lose the secret.

This affordance, in my mind, completely negates the need for a contract. I understand a contract as needed to navigate future risk and to mutually distribute the costs of a future "loss".

In the presence of a p2p social protocol the risk of loss of data is highly improbable.

What we're actually talking about is the following question:

"If I come and ask you for some help to put my shards back together, will you help me do it?"

Is a contract the best way to think about this? I feel it is not.

Am I making any sense?