Vitalik et al's latest paper: decentralized Society -- looking for the soul of Web3 (Part I)

Published on 6 Days ago   58 views   0 Comments  

Daorayaki Dao fellowship pool:

Funding address: daorayaki eth

Voting progress: Dao reviewer 3 / 0 passed

Total reward: 130 USD

Research category: Dao, desoc, soulbound

Original authors: E. Glen Weyl, puja ohlhaver, vitalik buterin


Reviewed by:

Decentralized Society: finding Web3's soul

E. Glen Weyl,  Puja Ohlhaver,  Vitalik Buterin

May 2022

"Tao is the mystery of all things, the treasure of good people, and the protection of bad people."

——Chapter 62 of Laozi

"Decentralized Society: finding the soul of Web3" is the latest paper by vitalik et al. This paper describes how to achieve a richer and more yuan ecosystem through soul binding tokens, that is, "decentralized Society (desoc) and key decomposable property rights and enhanced governance mechanisms in decentralized society". Therefore, daorayaki community specially translated this article and organized in-depth analysis of multiple podcasts. Because the full text is too long, we will send it out in three parts: upper, middle and lower.


Today, Web3 is more an expression of transferable and financial assets than a code of social trust. However, many core economic activities, such as unsecured loans and building personal brands, are based on lasting and non transferable relationships. In this paper, we illustrate how the non transferable "soul bound" tokens (SBTS) representing the promises, certificates and relationships of the "soul" encode the trust network of the real economy to establish provenance and reputation. More importantly, SBTS can realize more and more other application scenarios, such as community wallet recovery, anti-virus governance, decentralized mechanism, and new markets with decomposable and shared rights.

We call this richer and more meta ecosystem "decentralized society" - a jointly determined sociality in which the "soul" and the community come together from bottom to top as each other's emerging attributes to jointly create composite online goods and knowledge at different levels. The key to this sociality is decomposable property rights and enhanced governance mechanisms - such as secondary funding converted by relevance scores - to reward trust and cooperation, while protecting the network from capture, extraction and control. With this enhanced sociality, Web3, which spans social distance, can abandon today's excessive financialization and choose a more transformative and diversified future, a developing future.

§ Chapter 1 Introduction

In less than a decade, Web3 has created an unprecedented unique and flexible parallel financial system, which shocked the world. Encryption and basic elements in the economic field, such as public key cryptography, smart contract, proof of work and proof of interest, have brought a complex and open ecosystem to financial transactions.

However, the economic value of financial transactions is generated by human beings and their relationship. Because Web3 lacks the basic elements to represent this social identity, it fundamentally depends on the centralized web2 structure it wants to surpass, so it replicates its limitations.

This dependency is reflected in:

  1. Most NFT artists rely on centralized platforms such as opensea and Twitter to promise scarcity and initial provenance.
  2. Daos trying to go beyond simple token voting often rely on web2 infrastructure, such as social media accounts, to resist witch attacks.
  3. Many Web3 participants rely on hosted wallets managed by centralized entities such as coinbase or binance. The decentralized key management system is not friendly to anyone except a few geeks.

In addition, due to the lack of native Web3 identity, today's defi ecosystem cannot support the activities prevalent in the real economy, such as under mortgaged loans or simple contracts such as apartment leasing. In this article, we illustrate that even a small step towards the use of "soul bound" tokens to represent social identity can overcome these limitations and make the whole ecosystem a big step towards re establishing a market that reflects the interpersonal relationships of the original Web3 world.

Further, we point out that the original Web3 social identity, because of its rich social composability, can make great progress in Web3 on broader long-term issues such as wealth concentration and governance vulnerability to financial attacks, while stimulating the Cambrian outbreak of innovative political, economic and social applications. We call these use cases and the richer multi ecosystem they contribute to a "decentralized society" (desoc).

§ Chapter 2 Outline

Let's first explain the basic elements of desoc, which revolves around accounts (or wallets) holding non-negotiable (initially public) "soul bound" tokens (SBTS), representing commitments, certificates and relationships. This token is like an extended resume, issued by other wallets that can prove these social relationships.

Then, we describe a "ladder" of increasingly powerful applications implemented in the social stack by these basic elements of desoc, including:

  1. Establish provenance
  2. Unlocking the loan market with insufficient guarantee through reputation
  3. Decentralized key management
  4. Thwart and counteract coordinated strategic behavior
  5. Measurement decentralization
  6. Create a new market with decomposable and shared rights and permissions

The climax of this description is the assumption of desoc - a jointly determined sociality in which the "soul" and the community come together from bottom to top to jointly create composite network products, including composite intelligence, at different levels as each other's emerging attributes.

Finally, we answered several possible concerns and objections, compared with other identity paradigms familiar in Web3 space, and recognized that our vision is only the first step, but it is still a progress in programmable privacy and communication. Then we consider technical approaches to guide our imagined vision. On this basis, we expect that desoc may redirect Web3 to a deeper, legitimate and transformative path from a more philosophical perspective.

§ Chapter 3 "soul"

The key basic element we are talking about is an account, or wallet, that holds publicly visible, non transferable (but may be revoked by the issuer) tokens. We call the account "soul" and the tokens held in the account "soul tokens" (SBTS). Despite our strong interest in privacy, we initially assumed disclosure, because as a concept, it is easier to verify technically even if limited by the types of tokens people are willing to share publicly. Later in this article, we introduce the concept of "programmable privacy" for richer use cases.

Imagine a world where most participants have a "soul" that stores SBTS, corresponding to a series of relationships, memberships, and certificates. For example, a person may have a "soul" that stores SBTS, representing education certificates, employment history, or a string of hashes representing their works of art or literature. In the simplest form, these SBTS are "self certified", similar to the information we share about ourselves in our resume. However, when SBTS held by one "soul" can be issued or proved by other "souls", the real power of this mechanism will appear. These "souls" are the opponents of these relationships. The "soul" of these counterparties can be individuals, companies or institutions. For example, the Ethereum foundation can be a "soul" that sends SBTS to the "soul" participating in the developer conference. A university can be a "soul" that distributes SBTS to graduates. A stadium can be a "soul" that distributes SBTS to old Dodgers fans.

Please note that there is no requirement that a "soul" must be associated with a legal name, nor is there any agreement level attempt to ensure that "everyone has a soul". "Soul" can be a long-term pseudonym with a series of SBTS, which is not easy to connect with real people. Nor do we assume that the "soul" cannot be transferred between humans. Instead, we try to illustrate how these attributes naturally emerge from the design itself when needed.

§ Chapter 4 the ladder to a decentralized Society

4.1 art and "soul"

"Soul" is a natural way for artists to bet their reputation on their works. When issuing tradable NFTs, artists can issue NFTs from their "souls". The more SBTS the artist's "soul" carries, the easier it is for the buyer to identify that the "soul" belongs to the artist, so as to determine the legitimacy of NFT. Artists can go further and publish a linked SBTS in their "soul" to prove that an NFT is a member of the "collection" and guarantee any scarcity restrictions that artists want to set. Therefore, "soul" will create a reliable and chain way to pledge and build reputation on the origin and scarcity of an object.

It can be applied not only to art, but also to services, leasing and any market based on scarcity, reputation or authenticity. An example of the latter is to verify the authenticity of so-called factual records, such as photos and videos. With the progress of deep counterfeiting technology, the direct inspection of human and algorithm will be more and more unable to detect the authenticity. Although the addition of blockchain enables us to track the production time of a specific work, SBTS will enable us to track the social origin, provide us with a rich social background, and let us know the "soul" of the published work - their membership, relationship, combination of certificates - and their social distance from the work. "High imitation" can be easily identified because these works of art are not produced in the corresponding time and social context, while credible works of Art (such as photos) are proved by famous photographers. Current technology makes cultural products (such as pictures) lose their context and subject them to uncontrolled viral attacks in the absence of social context. SBTS can re contextualize these items and enable the "soul" to take advantage of the existing trust relationship in the community as a meaningful backing to protect reputation.

4.2 "soul" lending

Perhaps the greatest financial value directly based on reputation is credit and unsecured loans. At present, the Web3 ecosystem cannot replicate even simple forms of unsecured loans, because all assets are transferable and marketable, so they can only be simple forms of mortgages. The "traditional" financial ecosystem supports many forms of unsecured loans, but relying on centralized credit scores to measure borrowers' credit, borrowers have little incentive to share their credit history information. This score has many defects. At best, they weighted and de weighted credit related factors in an opaque manner and biased those who did not accumulate enough data, mainly ethnic minorities and the poor. In the worst case, they can manipulate the black mirror like "social credit" system and strengthen discrimination.

An ecosystem of SBTS can create an anti censorship, bottom-up alternative to the top-down commercial "social" credit system. SBTS representing education certificates, work history and lease contracts can be a lasting record of credit related history, allowing the "soul" to be pledged with a good reputation to avoid guarantee requirements and obtain loans. Loans and lines of credit can be represented as non transferable but revocable SBTS, so they are nested in other SBTS of the "soul" - an integral reputation collateral - until they are repaid and subsequently destroyed; Or better yet, replace it with a repayment certificate. SBTS provide a helpful security attribute: non transferability can prevent the transfer or hiding of outstanding loans, while a rich SBTS ecosystem can ensure that borrowers trying to avoid loans (perhaps by creating a new "soul") will lack SBTS to meaningfully pledge their reputation.

The convenience of using SBTS to calculate public debt will make the lending market more open. There will be a new correlation between SBTS and repayment risk, which will breed a better lending algorithm to predict credit rating, so as to reduce the dependence on centralized and opaque credit scoring infrastructure. Moreover, borrowing may occur in social connections. In particular, SBTS will form the basis for community lending practices, similar to those pioneered by Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, where members of social networks agree to support each other's debts. Since all SBTS of one "soul" represent the membership of different social groups, participants can easily find other "souls", and they will become important co participants in group lending projects. Commercial lending is a repayment mode of "borrowing and forgetting", while community lending may take the way of "borrowing and helping" - combining working capital with human capital, with a higher rate of return.

How is unsecured community lending implemented? At the beginning, we want "souls" to carry only SBTS that they are willing to share publicly, such as the information in their resumes. Although the scope is limited, this may be sufficient for community lending experiments, especially if SBTS are issued by reputable institutions. For example, a combination of SBTS showing certain programming certificates, several meetings and work experience may be an advantage for the "soul" to obtain venture capital (or raise seed funds) for them. Such certificates and social relationships have informally played an important but opaque role in capital allocation such as venture capital.

"Don't lose your soul"

The non transferability of some important SBTS - such as one-time education certificates - raises an important question: how to avoid losing your "soul"? Today's recovery methods, such as multi sign recovery or memory method, have different tradeoffs in terms of psychological load, transaction convenience and security. Social recovery is an emerging alternative that relies on a person's trust relationship. SBTS allow a similar but broader paradigm: community recovery, in which the "soul" is the cross voting of its social network.

Social recovery is a good starting point for security, but there are several shortcomings in security and availability. A user orchestrates a group of "guardians" and empowers them through the majority to change the keys to their wallets. Guardians can be individuals, institutions or other combinations of wallets. The problem is that users must find a balance between having relatively more guardians and ensuring that guardians come from unrelated social circles to avoid collusion. In addition, guardians may die, relationships deteriorate, or simply lose contact, resulting in frequent and attention-consuming updates. The successful recovery of the relationship with the guardian depends on the success of the planning and maintenance of the relationship with the society.

A more powerful solution is to link the recovery of "soul" with the membership of "soul" in the community, without planning, but to maximize the use of a wide range of real-time relationships to ensure security. Recall that SBTS represent membership in different communities. Some of these communities - such as employers, clubs, colleges or churches - may be more off chain, while others - such as participation in agreement governance or Dao - may be more on chain. In the community recovery model, restoring the private key of the soul requires the consent of most members from the "soul" community (random subset).

Just like social recovery, we assume that the "soul" can obtain a secure off chain communication channel where it can "authenticate" - through dialogue, face-to-face or sharing secrets. Compared with the calculation of robots on the chain or SBTS themselves, such communication channels need larger bandwidth (theoretically, they need to have the ability to carry richer "information entropy"). In fact, we can think that SBTS fundamentally represents participation in or access to this real (i.e. high bandwidth) communication channel.

Operational details need to be tested. For example, how to select guardians and how much consent of guardians is required are key safety parameters that need further study. However, with such a rich information base, community recovery should be computationally possible, and security will increase as the "soul" joins more different communities and forms more meaningful relationships.

As a security mechanism, community restoration embodies the identity theory put forward by Georg Simmel, a sociologist and founder of social network theory in the early 20th century, that is, individual identity appears from the intersection of social groups, just as social groups appear from the intersection of individuals. Maintaining and restoring the encrypted assets of "soul" requires the consent of "soul" network. By embedding security in sociality, souls can always regenerate their keys through community recovery, which prevents the theft (or sale) of "souls": because the seller needs to prove that the sale is to restore the relationship, any attempt to sell "souls" lacks credibility.

4.4 "soul" airdrop (souldrops)

So far, we have explained how the "soul" represents individuals and re demonstrates their unique characteristics and group identity when they obtain SBTS, thus demonstrating their relationships, memberships and certificates. Such personalization helps the soul build reputation, establish provenance, enter the unsecured lending market, and protect reputation and identity. But the reverse is also true; SBTS also enable communities to be summoned at the unique intersection of "souls". So far, Web3 has largely relied on token sales or airdrop to convene new communities, which is not accurate or accurate. Airdrops, that is, giving tokens to a group of wallet addresses for free through algorithms, mostly fall into some combination of existing token holders and wallets, which are vulnerable to witch attacks and encourage strategic behavior and Matthew effect. SBTS has a complete improvement on this, which we call "soul" airdrop.

Soul airdrop is calculated based on SBTS and other tokens in soul. For example, a Dao who wants to convene a community within a specific layer 1 protocol can air drop tokens to developers holding SBTS with 3 attendance in the past five meetings, or other tokens representing attendance, such as poaps. The protocol can also weight the delivery of tokens in the combination of various SBTS in a programmed way. We can imagine that a non-profit organization with the mission of planting trees will put governance tokens into the "soul" holding the combination of environmental action SBTS, gardening SBTS and carbon sequestration tokens - and perhaps put more tokens into carbon sequestration token holders.

The "soul" airdrop can also introduce new incentives to encourage community participation. Airdropped SBTS can be designed to be bound by the "soul" for a period of time, but eventually "belong" to transferable tokens over time. vice versa. Holding transferable tokens for a period of time can unlock the rights of SBTS, giving the agreement further governance rights. SBTS open up a wealth of possibilities to try different mechanisms to maximize community participation and other goals, such as decentralization. We will discuss it further below.

4.5 Dao composed of "soul"

Distributed autonomous organization (DAO) is a virtual community gathered around a common purpose, which is coordinated through smart contract voting on the public blockchain. Although Daos have great potential in coordinating global communities, they are vulnerable to witch attacks. A user can have multiple wallets to accumulate voting rights, or simply hoard tokens to accumulate 51% of voting rights and deprive the other 49% of voting rights in the less complex one currency one vote governance.

Dao can mitigate the witch attack of SBTS in the following ways:

  1. Calculate the SBTS set of a "soul" to distinguish between a unique soul and a possible robot, and deny any voting rights to the "soul" of a suspected witch.
  2. Give more voting rights to "souls" with more famous SBTS, such as work or education certificates, licenses or certificates.
  3. Special "proof of personality" SBTS are released, which can help other Daos deploy resistance to Witches more easily.
  4. Check the correlation between SBTS held by "soul" supporting a particular vote, and apply a lower voting weight to highly correlated voters.

The idea of the last correlation check is particularly promising and innovative. Votes supported by many "souls" who share the same SBTS are more likely to be witch attacks. Even if they are not witch attacks, such votes are more likely to be made by a group of "souls" who make the same mistakes or have the same bias in judgment. Therefore, their weight should be reasonably reduced compared with votes from more diverse participants with the same amount of support.

We discuss this idea in more detail mathematically in the appendix, where we introduce a new basic element called "correlation score". The concept of correlation discount can be extended to structured Prudential talks. For example, a Dao that is easily captured by the majority can calculate SBTS to maximize the gathering of different members in the meeting and ensure that the voices of a few people are heard.

Some strategies, such as "SBS", can also be used to stop vampire sexual behavior. In this attack, a Dao - usually a related economically valuable defi protocol - copies the open source code of another Dao, plagiarizes the research and development achievements of others, and then uses tokens to lure users' working capital into it. Dao can first create a specification around "soul" airdrops (perhaps holding specific SBTS), only give "soul" airdrops that may resist witch attacks and provide liquidity, and then detain those "souls" that transfer their liquidity in vampire attacks. The same mechanism does not work for wallet airdrops because holders can spread liquidity into many wallets to confuse their liquidity traces.

Daos can also use SBTS to enable leadership and governance to respond programmatically to their communities. The leadership role can change dynamically with the change of community composition - which is reflected in the distribution of SBTS in the "soul" of members. Some members can be promoted to potential management roles according to their intersection and coverage in multiple communities within the Dao. SBS can be used to maintain the status of "soul center" of the community. In addition, Dao can choose to make the combination of some features have a higher possibility of entering the governance layer than other features, such as the diversity of postal codes or Dao spanning more different interests.

4.6 measuring decentralization from the perspective of pluralism

When analyzing the ecosystem in the real world, it is best to measure the degree of decentralization of the ecosystem. To what extent is the ecosystem truly decentralized, and to what extent is the centralization "false", in fact dominated by one person or a small number of common actors?

Two popular decentralization indicators are Nakamoto coefficient proposed by Balaji Srinivasan, which measures how many different entities need to be combined to collect 51% of resources; And the Herfindahl Hirschman index, which is used to measure the market concentration of antitrust and is calculated by summing the squares of the market shares of market participants. However, these methods do not solve the key problems, that is, what is the correct measurement of resources, how to deal with partial coordination, and how to deal with the formation of "identifiable entity" gray areas.

For example, nominally independent companies may have many common major shareholders, directors who are friends with each other, or regulated by the same government. In the context of token agreement, it is very inaccurate to measure the decentralization of token holdings by looking at wallets on the chain, because many people have multiple wallets, and some wallets (such as exchanges) represent many people. In addition, even if the address can be traced back to unique individuals, these people may be socially related groups, prone to accidental coordination (best case) or deliberate collusion (worst case). A better measure of decentralization should capture social dependence, weak relationships and strong identity.

Miners and pit operators, which account for 90% of the total bitcoin, sat together at the meeting.

SBTS support a different way to measure the level of decentralization (or diversification) in a Dao, protocol, or network.

  1. As a first step, the agreement could limit token voting to "souls" that are better able to resist witch attacks (or have richer SBTS).
  2. In the second step, the agreement can check the correlation between SBTS held by different "souls". If "souls" share a large number of SBTS, their votes will be discounted (they will be concentrated and distinguished separately). (we have a more detailed mathematical discussion of the latter idea in Appendix A, where we introduce a new basic element called "correlation score").
  3. As a third step, in order to enlarge and understand the decentralization of the whole network, we can measure the correlation between the SBTS held by the "soul" at different levels of the network stack - measuring the correlation in voting, token ownership, governance related communication, and even the control of computing resources.

SBTS enable us to start measuring the degree of decentralization of an interoperable and layered ecosystem, which is very difficult to measure today. Another big question is what formula best captures what we want to measure and is least easy to manipulate. We will have many questions about how to check the relationship between SBTS - making some SBTS more weighted than others, discounting nested SBTS, or taking into account the composition of transferable tokens in a "soul". However, with a rich ecosystem of "soul" and SBTS, there will be more data for these calculations and move towards meaningful decentralization.

4.7 compound assets

Daos typically own assets or are organized around owning an asset, both in the virtual and physical worlds. So far, the scope of Web3 is largely limited to a small category of property where all rights can be fully transferred: tokens, NFT, works of art, first edition or rare manuscripts, such as the U.S. Constitution. However, the emphasis on transferability is detrimental to Web3, making it unable to represent and support some of the simplest and most common property contracts today, such as apartment leasing. In the Roman legal tradition, property rights are considered to be used by (& quot; usus & quot;) Consumption or destruction (& quot; abusus & quot;) & quote; Fructus & quote Composed of rights. All these rights rarely belong to the same owner. For example, an apartment lease grants a lessor limited access (& quot; usus & quot;), But not to destroy apartments & quote; Fructus & quote Even the unrestricted right to transfer the right of use (sublease). The right of real estate (land) is usually subject to a series of restrictions on private use, the grant of public use right, the right to sell, and even the right to purchase through expropriation. They usually also use the mortgage as collateral to transfer some financial value to the lender.

Future asset innovation is unlikely to be based on fully transferable private property as hitherto imagined. Instead, innovation will depend on the ability to decompose property rights to match the characteristics of the existing property system and code richer constructs. Companies and other organizational forms have evolved to restructure property rights in more creative ways - for example, allowing employees to use proprietary facilities (& quot; usus & quot;), However, it reserves the right to change or damage assets for managers (& quote; abusus & quote;), Pay the largest financial benefits to shareholders at the same time (& quot; Fructus & quot;). SBTS have the flexibility to represent and expand this subtle property rights of physical and virtual assets, while encouraging new experiments. Here are some use cases:

  1. Allow access to private or publicly controlled resources (e.g., homes, cars, museums, parks, and virtual equivalents). Transferable NFT can't capture this use case well, because access is often conditional and non transferable: if I trust you to enter my backyard and use it as an entertainment space, that doesn't mean I trust you to sublicense this license to others.
  2. Data cooperatives, in which SBTS grant data access to researchers, instantiate the access rights granted by members (perhaps through quadratic voting), and bargain for the economic rights of discovery and intellectual property generated in the research. We will further explore this issue in Chapter 5, "plural sensing".
  3. Experiment with local currency and formulate rules to make the currency held and consumed by the "soul" living in a specific area or belonging to a specific community have higher value.
  4. In terms of participation experiments, SBTS create a sustainable foundation for "souls" with less background (such as immigrants and teenagers) to gain influence in new and broader networks. Such souls will start with limited SBTS, connecting them to their families or local communities. As their relationships gradually diversify, they will gain a wider range of SBTS and thus the right to vote to influence a wider network - which is the spirit of Danielle Allen's multinational thought - and the current process is solved by arbitrary age and residence.
  5. Market designed experiments, such as harberger taxation and salsa (self-evaluation license in auction), in which asset holders publish a self-evaluation price, anyone else can buy assets from them, and must regularly pay taxes proportional to the self-evaluation price to maintain control. SBTS can be used to create more detailed versions of salsa - for example, participation rights are approved by the community to reduce strategic behavior from within or outside the community.
  6. Experimental democratic mechanism design, such as quadratic voting. Holders of SBTS representing community membership can vote twice on parameters such as incentives and tax rates. In the final analysis, "market" and "politics" are not independent design spaces; SBTS can become the main part of the technology stack and explore the whole space where these two categories are intertwined. Another such intersection is the provision of public goods through secondary fund-raising, for example.

Of course, some utopian scenarios can also be considered. The immigration system can be licensed with the SBTS of immigrants. Regulatory capture can be achieved by nesting community tokens. In this case, homeowners have disproportionate voting rights to block housing construction. SBTS can automatically draw a red line. As we discuss further below, these situations should be considered in the context of the current opaque top-down licensing and discrimination. SBTS will make discrimination more transparent and therefore likely to be questioned.

reference resources

  1. We thank Audrey Tang, Phil Daian, Danielle Allen, Leon Erichsen, Matthew Prewitt, divya siddarth, Jaron Lanier and Robert Miller for their thoughtful feedback and comments. All mistakes and opinions are borne by ourselves.
  2. Microsoft Corporation & RadicalXChange Foundation, Glen vinicula este documento a su Alma.
  3. Flashbots Ltd., Puja dedicated this article to his grandmother Satya, whose love and light will continue to shine on countless souls
  4. Ethereum Foundation, vitalik.
  5. We chose this set of attributes not because they are obviously the most ideal feature set, but because they are easy to implement in the current environment and support many functions. We will explore programmable private SBTS in section 5.3.
  6. However, please note that in principle, the legal name can be expressed as SBT: the name of a family will be the SBT of a member of a family group, and a given name can be an SBTS given to children by parents. In fact, if other families or related persons give the member SBT to the new child, the richer concept of name will be easy to express.
  7. And 
    For informal twitter surveys, the evidence shows that people have considered the idea of taking diversity into account in decision-making mechanisms to be intuitive.
  8. Not enough data accumulated: https://www.technologyreview-com/2021/06/17 /1026519/racial-bias-noisy-data-credit-scores-mortgage-loans-fairness-machine-learning/
  9. Social recovery:
  10. the matthew effect:
  11. Data Cooperatives:
  12. Multilateralism:

Generic placeholder image
Promote your coin to 10k unique users daily
contact us PM Twitter
31 views   0 Comments   2 Days ago
44 views   0 Comments   3 Days ago
32 views   0 Comments   3 Days ago
29 views   0 Comments   4 Days ago
57 views   0 Comments   5 Days ago
16 views   0 Comments   6 Days ago
68 views   0 Comments   1 Weeks ago