bloke on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

This week I built the backend logic for Uvio's user reputation metrics. Since this is all backend, there isn't too much to see. What you can see though is the amount of pull requests we crushed. Some more in depth info. Uvio is information markets for everyone. The basis of Uvio's information markets is onchain reputation. We need to keep track of how right and how honest users are. Those two metrics get fed back into the system at the maximum and final stage of Claim disputes. Uvio's information markets start out public and decentralized. As Claims may get disputed, the audience grows wider and the stakes get higher. But ultimately, if the community can just not come to consensus by itself, at the final stage, the users with the highest degree of competence and the highest degree of integrity get selected to vote on the final dispute. If you read this far, you deserve to login to Uvio and get your signup bonus of UVX tokens on the Base testnet. Go get your reputation right, onchain.

1 reply

1 recast

3 reactions

bloke pfp

this is great,.., i threw up a troll post as a test

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

The troll post in question below. 😅 Thanks for using the platform! When I saw it I wanted to engage but I am personally missing a bit of more reasoning behind this Claim that would allow me to participate on either side. As it is right now it's a bit too dark for me to be reasoned with. Feel free to propose more interesting Claims and please let me know if something doesn't work or if there is something that we should implement.

3 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

bloke pfp

No problem, I was trying to make it funny but failed lol.I was looking for either a villain quote or something absurd/controversial that no one agrees with. The reasoning side is exactly what should be implemented. Users should be able to associate reasons with proposals, by which people can vote on reasons or values even, rather than the topic itself. So that the voting process itself informs people.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

That is a super interesting idea. Where do the reasons come from in the screenshot above? Is this some AI generated summary based on user comments or would there be a more structured interface to allow for this kind of grouping?

3 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

bloke pfp

Full disclosure, this is something a friend and I thought a lot about, and we’re working towards building this for our DAO. i totally support y’all in your effort, and look forward to seeing uvio grow.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

Maybe you guys could tell me more about the needs that your DAO has. I would like to enable you to make better decisions using Uvio in whatever governance architecture you prefer. Uvio provides the atomic method of decision making itself. So you can leverage Uvio's two-step decision making process of staking and voting in any governance framework. I have a talk prepared for other institutions that are interested in Uvio Information Markets. If you like I can run you guys through it. FYI this presentation is not yet published in the docs.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

bloke pfp

Mate, I’m sorry, we would love to use your service for our DAO, but must disappoint. We have some core values / reasons we would associate with this proposal… that inhibit our ability to use Uvio.. Our most core-est value is decentralization, to the point of maximalism, and a derivative is the need to be completely dependency-less… which means, all data/code must be built from ground zero. That being said, we’re both going for similar things, and it’d be awesome if we could better understand/support each other; Would love to hear the presentation you have cooked up.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

bloke pfp

had to get bad news out right away.. apologies.. but still can see myself and others using uvio itself!!

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

No worries. Good to understand where your priorities lie. Uvio operates very pragmatically at the moment. All code is just open source. Everything has dependencies, and decentralization happens progressively as there is a need. At the moment there is a single smart contract for all Claims, including stakes and votes. This contract is deployed per token. For the prototype we have right now the written content of the Claims is offchain. We track a content checksum onchain in order to proof that what you are reading was in fact what was proposed in the first place. Later the written content can be posted onchain too. Just for the prototype this wasn't necessary. I was also wondering how Uvio could maybe run on Farcaster or how we can run the offchain logic in a more trustless way. I think this will eventually be solved via zero knowledge proofs and maybe something like TEEs.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

bloke pfp

tech is great but we have disagreements,.. it’s a tough world when people want perfection for dirt cheap. have a lot more questions and feedback if you don’t mind

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

Sure, just shoot.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

bloke pfp

These were my initial thoughts-tell me if these are problems or not. - built-in token weighted voting over democracy. Deepest pockets. - Reward for group-think, punishment for thinking outside the box. Disagreement is discouraged. - I was writing a claim yesterday, when I realized that it did not fit the platform. Because opinions/values do not get resolved, as often, truth exists through the eyes of the beholder. Do you plan on implementing opinions as claims in the future? summarize: confusion on whether or not token is optional; how to propose subjective claims?

3 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

Towards the third point: Uvio is designed to solve wicked problems. Referring to the thread on the other app again. What matters to humans is not necessarily truth, but trust. Which means that consensus is often all we can find in a world of 50 shades of gray. There or often no clear cut black and white answers. There is often not this one very obvious truth. If that truth would exist, we wouldn't have a problem to solve to begin with. Uvio is good for any contentious problem statement as long as you can articulate a binary outcome. That is a feature, not a bug. The simplicity of yes and no forces the Claim proposer to provide a simple thesis that everyone can reason about in their own preferred way. https://x.com/xh3b4sd/status/1852066206410473531

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

Towards the second point: Since there is no token weighted voting, the only thing that matters is the market resolution, which is based on community consensus. Any group think that is correct is not malicious in the first place. Any group think that is eventually found to be wrong will be punished by losing the staked tokens and with that the associated reputation. The diagrams below visualize the dual-step decision making process. You define your bet size in the first step. And you are rewarded or punished based on your own competence in the second step. The result of this dual-step decision making process is user reputation, which aggregates over time. That aggregated reputation allows individuals to safe entire organizations from corruption. Thinking in terms of disagreement as a metric is not useful here. The metrics that matter are competence and integrity: how right and how honest are you?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

xh3b4sd ↑ pfp

Towards the first point: Uvio does not do token weighted voting. Uvio makes dual-step decisions, meaning, you stake on opinions and vote on true outcomes. You make bank with the former, only if the latter finds consensus. Deep pockets mean nothing on Uvio. Only consensus has power, which is revealed on a "one user one vote" basis. In the docs you can read more about the random truth sampling process. I wrote a thread on the other app about truth versus trust. Happy to elaborate on that here in more detail if you like. https://x.com/xh3b4sd/status/1852066206410473531

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction