🪴 Scaling Synthesis

Search IconIcon to open search

C- Making editors identifiable incentivizes high quality reviews

Last updated April 28, 2022

Authored By:: P- Brendan Langen

In R- Science as Pull Requests, P- Cortex Futura paints a picture of an open source, engineering-focused academic review process of the future.

Part of our challenge is solving, Q- How can people maintain a decentralized discourse graph with a high quantity of information in it?

By allowing C- 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, Q- How can we incentivize generative contributions to a decentralized discourse graph? C- 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) I- Incentivize high quality review through token distribution.

Imagine if editors received a token for their peer-reviewed contributions. Q- What would a Web3 Wikipedia look like. In a way, we are applying the same principles as Audius. C- The incentives of Audius explicitly value curation

Q- How do we increase the frequency of social review?