4 ms·

I actually think this is a pretty good use case, since it fits the decentralized trust aspect that many common blockchain use cases lack. > some of that's alre

I actually think this is a pretty good use case, since it fits the decentralized trust aspect that many common blockchain use cases lack. > some of that's already being explored by the "open source + blockchain" endeavors. Any links?

fnordsensei 9y ago
I work for an Open Access publisher/research discovery technology company, and we literally have this on the drawing board. We're small, but well connected in the world of publishing and research. I for one would be also be interested in links. One thing we don't want to do is reinvent the actual blockchain technology, so we're also interested in finding partnerships in terms of platform technology.
- philipodonnell 9y ago
  A proof of stake smart contract would be perfect for this. The currency is reputation earned by writing well-done reviews and 'staked' behind reviews they believe are well-done. Papers need a certain number of well-done reviews with the stakes on both sides accumulating behind approve/deny. You have to pay with the currency to have your paper reviewed and the currencies are distributed to the reviewers to allow monetization via exchanges with a small amount withdrawn as a siphon to support the continued development of the network and marketing/public relations.
  - fnordsensei 9y ago
    Agreed! There's a lot in the blockchain model that seems to lend itself to this problem in particular. Ideally, we'd also like to set up a foundation to maintain and manage the ecosystem and invite both old and new players to participate. A lot of blockchain efforts seem to be a little too much like a hope for a monopoly wrapped in a thick layer of talk about free markets and democracy. We're actively looking for collaboration and partnerships around this. If you, or anyone, would like to get involved we'd be happy to discuss. My email is in my profile.
    - RangerScience 9y ago
      Neat. I'm at a crypto conference in a couple weeks, I'll see if there's any sparks on this idea. I agree with an above post that the starting point is that you get paid to review, and you pay to get reviewed; although you'd need another way to monetize the token or it's limited to this use case. The overlap with open-source seem clear: How do you validate the value of the crowd-sourced contributions? In code, you could do it via TDD... OH! OR - (well, you could make both), you pay to review by _betting for it's validity_. There may be a way to combine or borrow from each approach to fill in the gaps in the other.
    - RangerScience 9y ago
      > My email is in my profile I am shamefully bad at encryption stuff. How do I get your email from the string in your profile?
    - mlspector 9y ago
      I'm one of the main developers of OpenReview.net, and I would love to discuss this more with you, but like the other commenter, I can't figure out how to get your email from your profile (I'm also generally new to HN and may just be missing something - for example, is there a direct message-like option here?)
RangerScience 9y ago
Oh geez. No? I may also just be confusing my own (ancient) thinking on how to do this with things that actually exist. The central overlap is validating the value of contributions.

fnordsensei 9y ago

I work for an Open Access publisher/research discovery technology company, and we literally have this on the drawing board. We're small, but well connected in the world of publishing and research. I for one would be also be interested in links. One thing we don't want to do is reinvent the actual blockchain technology, so we're also interested in finding partnerships in terms of platform technology.

philipodonnell 9y ago
A proof of stake smart contract would be perfect for this. The currency is reputation earned by writing well-done reviews and 'staked' behind reviews they believe are well-done. Papers need a certain number of well-done reviews with the stakes on both sides accumulating behind approve/deny. You have to pay with the currency to have your paper reviewed and the currencies are distributed to the reviewers to allow monetization via exchanges with a small amount withdrawn as a siphon to support the continued development of the network and marketing/public relations.
- fnordsensei 9y ago
  Agreed! There's a lot in the blockchain model that seems to lend itself to this problem in particular. Ideally, we'd also like to set up a foundation to maintain and manage the ecosystem and invite both old and new players to participate. A lot of blockchain efforts seem to be a little too much like a hope for a monopoly wrapped in a thick layer of talk about free markets and democracy. We're actively looking for collaboration and partnerships around this. If you, or anyone, would like to get involved we'd be happy to discuss. My email is in my profile.
  - RangerScience 9y ago
    Neat. I'm at a crypto conference in a couple weeks, I'll see if there's any sparks on this idea. I agree with an above post that the starting point is that you get paid to review, and you pay to get reviewed; although you'd need another way to monetize the token or it's limited to this use case. The overlap with open-source seem clear: How do you validate the value of the crowd-sourced contributions? In code, you could do it via TDD... OH! OR - (well, you could make both), you pay to review by _betting for it's validity_. There may be a way to combine or borrow from each approach to fill in the gaps in the other.
  - RangerScience 9y ago
    > My email is in my profile I am shamefully bad at encryption stuff. How do I get your email from the string in your profile?
  - mlspector 9y ago
    I'm one of the main developers of OpenReview.net, and I would love to discuss this more with you, but like the other commenter, I can't figure out how to get your email from your profile (I'm also generally new to HN and may just be missing something - for example, is there a direct message-like option here?)

RangerScience 9y ago

Oh geez. No? I may also just be confusing my own (ancient) thinking on how to do this with things that actually exist. The central overlap is validating the value of contributions.