Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
Here's how anoncast is going to go: It's going to be fun and edgy for a while, and then people are going to realize that it makes slander free, and it will get noisy and useless and then people will unfollow it because it isn't high enough signal. It will be more meaningful to say `anon of ${KNOWN GROU} says:`
12 replies
12 recasts
102 reactions
Kartik
@slokh
@anoncast is already noisy. There's two potential solutions to that: (1) curation, right now we have a dumb method of letting large holders curate content into @anonbangers which works for now, but we need to democratize this via weighted voting (2) credentials, allow posters to attach zk credentials to their posts
4 replies
0 recast
18 reactions
Chainleft
@chainleft
Could there be a curation method where the weight is distributed by the popularity of previous posts instead of holdings? I know this can then be gamed, but it can also be time-weighted, where the earlier bangers have more weight than more recent bangers.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
I think you just invented a private currency pool. :P Blind mint secret tokens to private recipient based on banger-ness, then private recipient uses their tokens to weigh future posts higher. Add some deflation/inflation for time-weighing. Similar tech to Tornado Cash at the core!
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Chainleft
@chainleft
Banger ponzi 😅
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
Since likes are cryptographically verified and public, and the firehose of anon posts are public, there's definitely nothing preventing this from happening. There's a slight rub that likes are also pretty easy to sybil... are we still entertaining the "$5 solves sybils" narrative?
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Chainleft
@chainleft
My uneducated hypothesis is that earlier likes have more weight as there are less incentives for actors to have sybilled them, hence the time-weighted distribution idea. Still not ideal probably.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
