Making editors identifiable incentivizes high quality reviews
Authored By:: Brendan Langen
In Science as Pull Requests, Cortex Futura paints a picture of an open source, engineering-focused academic review process of the future.
Part of our challenge is solving, How can people maintain a decentralized discourse graph with a high quantity of information in it?
By allowing Anonymous contributions to a decentralized discourse graph enable balanced review, we enable for reviews to be unbiased. However, because we want our information to be valid, we also need to answer, How can we incentivize generative contributions to a decentralized discourse graph? Curation is an important role in maintaining a decentralized discourse graph, and staking rewards for editing is a step to ensuring high quality.
(Rough idea here) Incentivize high quality review through token distribution.
Imagine if editors received a token for their peer-reviewed contributions. What would a Web3 Wikipedia look like. In a way, we are applying the same principles as Audius. The incentives of Audius explicitly value curation