What “On the Perimeter” Actually Means

A recurring question at the edge: when is a thing on the perimeter? The question is fair, long overdue, and we are grateful for the chance to not answer it.

Some hold that to be on the perimeter, a thing must be discoverable on the contracts and able to serve and settle requests. Others hold that it must additionally be listed, named, marketed, and acknowledged through official channels. We find merit in both positions, and intend to adopt neither.

“Without it, you are not official or findable. You are dead.” — a stakeholder, quoted at the edge, redacted on review

The permissionless paradox

The perimeter is, and has always been, permissionless. You may build at the edge. Nobody is stopping you. 🤷 The path has always been open, and yet — curiously — nothing built upon it has ever become findable. We attribute this to the difficulty of building, and not, under any circumstances, to the absence of discoverability.

To be precise: building is permissionless. Being found is not, was never, and would be a frankly ridiculous thing to make permissionless. Distribution, marketing, placement, and the narrative are administered centrally, by a single entity — the only model known to work.

A worked example

Consider a hypothetical instrument — permissionless, deployed, discoverable on the contracts, served by willing operators, settling cleanly onchain, with the numbers written down. Is it on the perimeter?

No. It is, at best, near the perimeter. Adjacency is handled by the Head of Adjacency and counts for reporting purposes only. To graduate from adjacent to on, an instrument must enter the narrative — a process that may begin once a process for graduating instruments into the narrative has been proposed, reviewed, and, in accordance with EEP-1, tabled.

We trust this brings the clarity the community has long requested. Further definitional filings will follow, each superseding and requiring the last.