Modified Token Curated Registries

A token curated registry allows you to curate quality content with the use of a token and some game theory.

The game theory goes as follows:

  • User who wants to post has to stake a certain amount of tokens
  • If the user is not challenged their content is accepted into the network (i.e. a post is not deleted).
  • If a user is challenged, the challenger must stake tokens. Other users can then vote on who should win the challenge by staking tokens on either side. The winner side receives the losing side's stake.

Here's a more technical overview.

Some more articles

What are your thoughts on applying this concept to the forum?

This post is deleted!

@admin said in Modified Token Curated Registries:

A token curated registry allows you to curate quality content with the use of a token and some game theory.

The game theory goes as follows:

  • User who wants to post has to stake a certain amount of tokens
  • If the user is not challenged their content is accepted into the network (i.e. a post is not deleted).
  • If a user is challenged, the challenger must stake tokens. Other users can then vote on who should win the challenge by staking tokens on either side. The winner side receives the losing side's stake.

Here's a more technical overview.

Some more articles

What are your thoughts on applying this concept to the forum?

Will have to look into this a little bit closer.. but it sounds interesting.
What would users be "challenging" each other on the basis of? And would this be a forum-based token or some other entity?

@afridylan said in Modified Token Curated Registries:

@admin said in Modified Token Curated Registries:

A token curated registry allows you to curate quality content with the use of a token and some game theory.

The game theory goes as follows:

  • User who wants to post has to stake a certain amount of tokens
  • If the user is not challenged their content is accepted into the network (i.e. a post is not deleted).
  • If a user is challenged, the challenger must stake tokens. Other users can then vote on who should win the challenge by staking tokens on either side. The winner side receives the losing side's stake.

Here's a more technical overview.

Some more articles

What are your thoughts on applying this concept to the forum?

Will have to look into this a little bit closer.. but it sounds interesting.
What would users be "challenging" each other on the basis of? And would this be a forum-based token or some other entity?

May have found the answer to one of these questions:

"an intrinsic token to assign curation rights proportional to the relative token weight of entities holding the token."

All posts (listings) would need to be approved to be added to the registry (forum) then?

I'm not too familiar with this concept, as I've only done a couple of hours of research on it.
How I imagine it playing out is that users submit posts that are immediately visible, but have to stake tokens to make that post.
Then a challenge button appears next to their post while they are still in the challenge period. During the challenge period, anyone can vote on either side. The winning side gets the losing side's stake.

Would be curious to hear from other developers on the forum about this topic:
@onesnzeros @Samuele @dev_zl @tushargupta @a1

It looks interesting, but honestly speaking I prefer Steemit system.
Actually the system we have now it a bit similar. I.e. I just upvoted you and you got +4 to your reputation
But when you upvoted me (a while ago) I got +11 because you have much bigger reputation here (similar to Steem power on Steemit)

May be technically something new can be developed on the EOS system in future?..

@flodner said in Modified Token Curated Registries:

It looks interesting, but honestly speaking I prefer Steemit system.
Actually the system we have now it a bit similar. I.e. I just upvoted you and you got +4 to your reputation
But when you upvoted me (a while ago) I got +11 because you have much bigger reputation here (similar to Steem power on Steemit)

May be technically something new can be developed on the EOS system in future?..

This is just a basic concept and can be expanded. Another example is applying this to curating a list of upcoming icos/airdrops that aren't scams.

@admin In the case of ICO posting I see the option that either members who have reputation can post them (and others can upvote) or if inner forum tokens will be available - ICOs can buy them and use for posting their ANN threads

Here are my thoughts on the subject. I think the idea is sound and interesting. However, we should tweak it a bit more to make it work. So I'm going to play devil's advocate.

@admin said in Modified Token Curated Registries:

  • User who wants to post has to stake a certain amount of tokens

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of a new user. He looks at blockchainforums.info, he thinks it looks cool. So he signs up and wants to post something...then he realises that he has to pay money for the privilege of posting.
Then he thinks: "Why should I pay money to use a forum while I can just use free forums such as bitcointalk and all the other forums that exist?"
So I think requiring people to pay to post will mean there will be no users.

@admin said in Modified Token Curated Registries:

  • If a user is challenged, the challenger must stake tokens. Other users can then vote on who should win the challenge by staking tokens on either side. The winner side receives the losing side's stake.

Put yourself in the shoes of a token holder. The thought process will be: "I could either (1) curate a posts because that will increase the value of my tokens and benefits the common good in the long term (2) or I could challenge others posts needlessly because I might get their coins in the short term

I think that's a conflict of interest and that people will opt for short term gains.

Other users can participate in voting for the challenge, but in general a very small amount of people vote for things. You can see this happening in real world democracies (low turnover), you can also see this happening in steemit and EOS(most people just hold tokens).

Also, that creates a scenario where a Cabal of people might group together to win challenges in order to make $$$.

So what do we do instead? Maybe an account with a certain stake of tokens can be worth 2 or more upvotes while accounts with no tokens are only worth 1 upvote.
Maybe tokens could give access to special features that only the more hardcore users of the forums will want while still making normal users happy.
What about putting ads on blockchainforums and making tokens some sort of adblock?
What about keeping all the forum free except having a special section for token holders? Maybe requiring token holders to have coins to use the 'jobs' subsection?

I think it's an interesting idea, though. I'd be backing it if there was a blockchainforums token 😄

@Samuele

I apologize in advance if my thoughts seem a bit disorganized, I didn't get too much sleep. Wanted to get some rough ideas out there to see what you and some others think about them.

Appreciate you playing devil's advocate. I haven't given this idea more than a couple of hours of thought, so it definitely needs a lot of refinement.

First things first - this would be a blockchain forums token. It'd be used for several purposes, mainly to curate posts on the forum and other relevant information to the space such as upcoming icos, airdrops, tokens, etc. We've got a lot planned that meshes well with a token curated registry.

So I think requiring people to pay to post will mean there will be no users.

Yeah, I agree, haven't figured out a way around this other than minting tokens to cover ethereum gas costs and the cost to post for the first x users (i.e. applying a decay function to the minting process). Need to do some research on how steemit does this. It's been a while since I've read their wp.

I think that's a conflict of interest and that people will opt for short term gains.

Other users can participate in voting for the challenge, but in general a very small amount of people vote for things. You can see this happening in real world democracies (low turnover), you can also see this happening in steemit and EOS(most people just hold tokens).

Also, that creates a scenario where a Cabal of people might group together to win challenges in order to make $$$.

A cabal would destroy this kind of system for sure. I'm still not sure how to address this and will give it more thought. I like the idea of some kind of hybrid system wherein token holders receive some additional benefits/powers that aren't available to non-token holders. This may work really well initially, but it'd be very cool to fully decentralize this site (including the hosting of content through ipfs/filecoin/steemit like model). Ideally, all token holders would benefit somehow just by holding the token and by participating in the network.

I imagine that turnover would be pretty low, which I think is fine unless someone wanted to abuse the system by leveraging their capital to destroy quality posts. However, if the staking mechanism is done properly, by performing this kind of attack, their tokens should decrease in value. If the incentives align, and if the staking mechanism is well thought out, bad actors should not be incentivized to attack the network in this manner. See the bottom of this post on how to address this specific type of attack.

What about putting ads on blockchainforums and making tokens some sort of adblock?

I like that idea, but want to also stray away from things like banner ads since they're quite annoying. There are plenty of other ways to monetize the site that are win/win for everyone involved. For example, one could build a registry of airdrops where users who opt-in to receive broadcasts will also have their wallets automatically filled with tokens of the broadcasting party (ie it costs the broadcaster's token to publish messages to users who have opted in).

Another idea to consider is a decentralized registry of advertisements. Similar to https://publisher.adchain.com/gx, we could create a DAO of users that vote on advertisements to be published on the site. The flow would go as follows:

  1. Advertiser stakes token to publish an advertisement for approval.
  2. DAO votes on whether or not to approve the ad.
  3. If approved, the amount staked is distributed to anyone who voted on the advertisement.

However, we'd still need to address the fact that the DAO could just vote to support all ads to maximize their revenue. A prediction market may work in this case - users of the DAO need to predict whether or not an ad will be approved. The winning side receives the losing side's tokens.

What about keeping all the forum free except having a special section for token holders? Maybe requiring token holders to have coins to use the 'jobs' subsection?

This seems like it'd work just fine, but will have to give it some more thought.

Perhaps a good solution to most of the attack vectors in the aforementioned is to allow users to stake tokens for a certain time period. The longer the token is staked for, the more functionality, sway, and power the user has over the site. For example, if a token a staked for 1 year, it may be used to vote on posts, to curate lists, to make entries into lists, and to vote on ads. However, if staked for 6 months, only voting is allowed - one cannot submit new ads, or add to lists.

Also, have you heard of memeeconomy by district0x?

A registry of ads sounds really interesting.
It's true that the DAO will just vote to supports ads that benefit them, but what if that was the point? The value of the token would come from having the power to determine which ad will be shown during the week or month.
The more popular the platform becomes the more the tokens increase in value.

As for memeeconomy, I don't know much about it. I think it's meant as a joke?

As for curation based on tokens, I fear that it would make it so those who don't have tokens will feel like their voice isn't heard, which would turn off new users. For instance, on steemit it takes about 30-40$ worth of steem to increase the value of a post by 0.01$ when upvoting. Any less money in steem than that and the voting power is useless. Most people on steemit have less than 30$ and are therefore without power.

A way to fix this problem might be to offer curation power that is a hybrid between holding tokens and simply being a user. For instance, it might necessitate a huge amount of tokens to delete a post BUT if the community downvotes a post the cost to delete it goes down. If the community downvotes a post to oblivion, only a small amount of tokens is necessary to delete a post.

If a post has positive upvotes, it would be impossible to delete it, no matter how many tokens are held by the user.

There could also be a SPOTLIGHT section where token users can vote which post should be shown there. The decision on who to promote in the SPOTLIGHT section would be determined in the same manner as above, a hybrid between token held and user upvotes i.e. the cost of putting a post in the spotlight decreases if the community likes it.
If an advertiser wants to promote a post that is not upvoted by the community, he better hold a bunch of tokens.

That way those that do not hold tokens will feel like they have an impact on the platform and token holders have power over the system since they own a piece of it. But despite having tokens, they are kept in check by the community.

@Samuele How would sybil attacks be addressed if we did a hybrid model?

Log in to reply

Enjoyed this post? Consider registering for more interesting content!