I agree that this is an issue. We are currently trying a combination of two things. First, every human can verify themselves via the passport, and this comes with some "voting rights". This way, we keep it open. Second, there is a per-person, per-content limit on voting power. This aims to prevent some people from becoming too powerful. The exact limit needs to be adapted over time. But yeah, we haven't found the perfect solution here, and we need to keep working on it and improving it. That's also why we are looking for as much feedback as possible.
We are currently working on Curyo. The main idea is to create a new rating system for the age of AI, since we think we need better/new quality signals for the web. We are generally interested in getting more feedback on what a good rating system should be.
FYI: We previously submitted a link to the website to invite people to test it, but it was immediately flagged as "dead". I'm not sure why, but the project is completely open source, and there's no money involved or anything like that. It uses a public ledger, but this is because we thought a trustless ledger would make sense for a new rating system (because of the transparency). We are happy to change this if people prefer a database, because it's more user-friendly.
I’m currently working on curyo.xyz. The main idea is to create a new rating system for the age of AI, since we think we need better/new quality signals for the web.
Current features:
- Using zero-knowledge proofs for a proof of personhood (no personal data shared)
- Reputation as a conviction signal and gamification (gain reputation)
- Blind voting phase to fight herding
- Using a public ledger in the background for transparency
We know that the current implementation is far from a perfect rating system, but that’s why we are here, trying to get as much feedback as possible and finding the right balance between hard to attack and user-friendly.
reply