Checkmating can only be coded as a community consensus. Though it will be an almost impossible mission, but how about having a decentralized blockchain policing system whereby all newly launched projects will have its discussion portal and the token may be powered by another service that generates wealth to reward users for discussing about projects on the platform.
You could use a service like
Blockstack to build such a decentralized community hub. The problem, however, still would persist, it would become even more difficult to combat scams, because the blockchain treats every opinion in the same way. Downvoting, like at
Steemit, could be an alternative, but it can and will be abused. No variant is perfect ...
Another way though is through KYC. We can make it a communal thing that for anyone to buy from any ICO the team has to be properly verified and accountable to an authority.
And who decides which authority is valid? If it's a "community vote", then also the scammers can vote authorities they like.
IMO, more important than such "censorship mechanisms" is education - I've thought, for example, about a wiki about known crypto scam techniques and methods how to determine the risk of a project.
Also we need people with other unique social services, not just talk about everything crypto, like facebook, about people and for the people, a kind of hub like that is what I mean.
There are some forum software packages (like Friendica) that could, in theory, connect the hubs at different platforms - e.g. a Friendica-based Bitcointalk could communicate with Facebook and Twitter groups. I don't know if the
new forum software is intended to provide a similar feature. It would be cool but would require LOT of work as social media platforms change their APIs all the time ...
The volatility of the cryptos are a very big issue, but for companies to be tokenized on the blockchain, their token value is not based on the btc price but entirely based on the companies physical market capitalization,
This would be the ideal situation, but it would require a similar transparency policy by the companies than in those who are listed at regular stock exchanges. In this case, I think it's possible. But at the current situation, we see what happens to almost all tokens representing a "company" out there at Ethereum and other similar platforms: they largely follow the Bitcoin price.
You could use a service like
Blockstack to build such a decentralized community hub. The problem, however, still would persist, it would become even more difficult to combat scams, because the blockchain treats every opinion in the same way. Downvoting, like at
Steemit, could be an alternative, but it can and will be abused. No variant is perfect ...
Exactly, no variant is perfect, but combining different variants to respond to an outcome of another variant in a relational model and not specifically value a project based on it being downvoted or upvoted but based on so many other factors which will be factored in during the coding process, could go a long way, but like you said, the end result will still be very far from being perfect. Giving it a shot is good. I'll check out Blockstack
And who decides which authority is valid? If it's a "community vote", then also the scammers can vote authorities they like.
IMO, more important than such "censorship mechanisms" is education - I've thought, for example, about a wiki about known crypto scam techniques and methods how to determine the risk of a project.
Making that wiki will be awesome, and it needs to be marketed well, I and my team have a platform we're working on, it has a future to be a hub where such information can be publicized and it will have a good reach. I will gladly make such publicity without being paid for it.
As for authorities, blockchain projects has to be such that any project coming from any part of the world must undergo national KYCs first, like the SEC for projects from the United States. If at the national level, the government can attest of the validity of project team members, then people who wants to invest can be rest assured that they know who they're transferring their wealth to. Then if project team mates are unverified, only the dull ones will invest in such a project. Also, if a project launches an ICO without proper verification or location, they could be tracked down by an authority set up by maybe the United Nations or any big enough body. Another thing I'll add is that there will be no rules nor requirement for a project to be approved by any government, all that matters is for the government to be aware that the people in their country are who they say they are. Also the only rule that has to be available is that for funds they raised, adequate contract will be made by the team members to deliver on their project promises or face trials which will lead to jail terms and asset liquidation. If these things are not in place, the mainstream won't feel protected and will be very skeptical to have full involvement in cryptos.
There are some forum software packages (like Friendica) that could, in theory, connect the hubs at different platforms - e.g. a Friendica-based Bitcointalk could communicate with Facebook and Twitter groups. I don't know if the
new forum software is intended to provide a similar feature. It would be cool but would require LOT of work as social media platforms change their APIs all the time ...
It will be awesome if Bitcointalk has a new feature like that coming. However, my main issue with Bitcointalk is that they should break program flows a bit for the less technical persons who just want to socialize to have some frenzy, and for the UI to be worked on so well, so that the flares of platforms with good user experience like Instagram and others will be here in the crypto world. The service can also have other ways of generating funds for themselves aside from adverts at the bottom of a post, and tiny evil fees. There has to be a way to make the platform an income generator so that they can afford the maintenance required as I envision.
Show Posts
