Short Story

from:

Ideascale link

Challenge question :

How can we ensure that future voters in the Cardano ecosystem will vote in a way that benefits the health of the ecosystem and themselves?

Why is it important?

Voters do not always vote in their own best interest. The monetary incentive scheme being developed is a great start, but it is not enough.

How does success look like?

Voters would have a de facto dApp/website they could visit to conduct research. It would present information in varying modalities, for all

Key Metrics to measure

– Creation of a dApp or website that is accessible to any individual with internet access.
– Promotes great education as a method to help make an informed decision
– Content is submitted, crowd-sourced by the greater community, and can be verified by a chain of sources that always terminates at a primary source

– Submitted content meets the needs of a wide range of cognitive levels and abilities
– Motivates voters to make decisions that benefit themselves and the network
– Helps promote social incentives for voting in a manner that benefits the ecosystem to help deter the threat of future social engineering intended to harm the network

Challenge brief

We have seen in the past decade that the opinion of a collective group of people can be manipulated, literally steered, toward the desired conclusion of some entity through social engineering. The bottom line summary of the solution I’d like to see developed is something that can help the broadest possible range of individuals access information that is pertinent to voting and decision making that they can undoubtedly feel is trusted and true.

Currently, for the greater population of voters, the primary source of information to make a voting decision is whatever is provided by the Catalyst Voting mobile app. The information provided in the app by each proposer goes through multiple rounds of revision by community advisors, which provides rigor. As great as that information is, there will ultimately be proposals on decisions that will require knowledge that is outside the scope of an average individual’s knowledge or abilities, i.e., we know a primary source is truthful, but it is not always useful. In those cases, the currently proposed remedy is to allow an individual to delegate their vote to an “expert” through a system of liquid democracy.

However, the problem still stands; If an individual does independently decide that their vote needs to be delegated, an informed and educated decision still needs to be made. Whom is the individual to trust when making the decision to delegate their vote? Can the expert be trusted? The expert has an incentive to gather voting power and may say whatever is necessary to get it. The expert could put false information out there, or partner with an entity that will propagate false information in the interest of the “expert”. The expert’s motivation could be to intentionally do harm to the network or, even worse, may think their intentions are good, but have themselves succumbed to misinformation.

To get useful information into the hands of voters, it needs to be summarized, simplified, or analogized, by people, all while remaining TRUE. It is possible there will be many “layers” of people that process and disseminate the information. The first layer would be individuals who take information straight from the primary source, process the information, and put it back out into the world in a manner that is useful to “many others”. Those “many others” might be the second layer of people that take in the information, process it, and put it back out into the world in a way that yet a third layer of individuals will find useful…and so on. In this game of “telephone”, there should be a way to ensure that each player in the game, or the information each produces, can trusted and is true.

The focus is on creating a platform that is comprehensive, accessible, and easy to use:

– Easy to use and accessible to as many as is reasonable. This means content is created for a wide range of cognitive abilities…PhD, all the way down to perhaps 10 years old, however ten years old could be a stretch goal

– The content that is created is trusted. That means it is verified by a community of reputable individuals, perhaps established through a reputation and voting system similar to what is used on the stack exchange family of websites. Perhaps there are small monetary costs involved to ensure votes are made wisely

– The development of the solution perhaps considers why and how people fall into a, “bubble of information” and implements a system that helps deter it or, if inevitable, ensures a bubble of truth. Though this would be a very complex piece of the endeavor and would be considered a stretch goal

Challenge budget in USD. Only use numbers! No symbols, letters, fractions. 300000

Which of these definitions apply to you? Other/Prefer not to say, Teacher, Entrepreneur

Want to register as a community advisor? Confirm all following statements are true: I want to serve as a community advisor. I did not submit a funding proposal for Fund3. I am not affiliated with any proposing team in Fund3. I commit to provide fair and thoughtful reviews. One or more of the above statements are false.

Decentralized Sources of Truth

Goal: $300,000.00
318 Campaigns | 0 Loved campaigns

Reviews

There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to review “Decentralized Sources of Truth”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *