>This is great for the winner, but how would you prevent collusion here? Well the implication here is by publishing the person's name you have a public / crowd

>This is great for the winner, but how would you prevent collusion here? Well the implication here is by publishing the person's name you have a public / crowdsourced validation process, right? But how do you prevent collusion and abuse by the general public if they're really part of the validation process? Both have the same solution - you need trusted parties to validate the process, people who were themselves validated and vetted to do the work. Isn't that already in place? I believe so.