Fork HumanityDAO and make it about trusted news sources instead
This idea loosely follows the Token-Curated Registry model, where cryptoeconomics/game theory autonomously incentivizes curators to approve "consensus" fact checking websites [https://medium.com/@tokencuratedregistry/the-token-curated-registry-whitepaper-bd2fb29299d6]. We create a governance token and, using cryptoeconomics, tokens holders can stake an application where other participants can vote on in a defined timeframe; which creates a miniature market with its own incentives.
Essentially, people would stake tokens to get a newspaper approved on the list. If it is accepted, it gets added to the list. If not, one loses its stake.
To be defined:
what qualifies a "trusted news source"? I propose we do a simple majority vote, and verify for independent journalism. In practice, any news sources that has 50% or more controversial opinions on it would not make the cut. It is very likely that Breitbart News would not make the cut, for instance. Rational curators would not suggest it, because they will lose their stake. On the other hand, Wall Street Journal or Wired are likely to get approved.
should an application be made by anyone, or specifically the trusted news sources itself? I recommend anyone could to try to lower barriers of entry, at least initially. Ideally, if we can get media's attention, journalists stake their application themselves, because being included would mean a better reputation and more website visitors.
The interest for this is twofold: first, as initial trustworthy famous papers gets added, and the system gets more robust and popular, it diminishes trolls potential room for attack. And it's precisely when major news actors are added that people will start added less established, but factual, newspapers, where getting on the list is actually needed and useful for them to decide whether or not they're trustworthy. WSJ don't need it, but local newspapers might.
The second is that once we have a coherent list of newspaper that are not very controversial, they can start "blockchain" objective facts, by staking their application if the fact is later deemed wrong. They're thus incentivized to not lie. Even better, media that relies on their facts will have to pay them tokens to reuse their facts. Which means fact news could become profitable.
Of course, there is a lot of assumption. Would be great to bounce ideas. Thanks for reading!
vs77bb
commented
5 years ago
Fork HumanityDAO and make it about trusted news sources instead
This idea loosely follows the Token-Curated Registry model, where cryptoeconomics/game theory autonomously incentivizes curators to approve "consensus" fact checking websites [https://medium.com/@tokencuratedregistry/the-token-curated-registry-whitepaper-bd2fb29299d6]. We create a governance token and, using cryptoeconomics, tokens holders can stake an application where other participants can vote on in a defined timeframe; which creates a miniature market with its own incentives.
Essentially, people would stake tokens to get a newspaper approved on the list. If it is accepted, it gets added to the list. If not, one loses its stake.
To be defined:
what qualifies a "trusted news source"? I propose we do a simple majority vote, and verify for independent journalism. In practice, any news sources that has 50% or more controversial opinions on it would not make the cut. It is very likely that Breitbart News would not make the cut, for instance. Rational curators would not suggest it, because they will lose their stake. On the other hand, Wall Street Journal or Wired are likely to get approved.
should an application be made by anyone, or specifically the trusted news sources itself? I recommend anyone could to try to lower barriers of entry, at least initially. Ideally, if we can get media's attention, journalists stake their application themselves, because being included would mean a better reputation and more website visitors.
The interest for this is twofold: first, as initial trustworthy famous papers gets added, and the system gets more robust and popular, it diminishes trolls potential room for attack. And it's precisely when major news actors are added that people will start added less established, but factual, newspapers, where getting on the list is actually needed and useful for them to decide whether or not they're trustworthy. WSJ don't need it, but local newspapers might.
The second is that once we have a coherent list of newspaper that are not very controversial, they can start "blockchain" objective facts, by staking their application if the fact is later deemed wrong. They're thus incentivized to not lie. Even better, media that relies on their facts will have to pay them tokens to reuse their facts. Which means fact news could become profitable.
Of course, there is a lot of assumption. Would be great to bounce ideas. Thanks for reading!