Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
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
@cloaked-bloke
this is great,.., i threw up a troll post as a test
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
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
@cloaked-bloke
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 ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
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
@cloaked-bloke
nah, it would not be AI generated. Finding the reasons behind proposals is the most fun part! it’d be gameified Some would be proposal-specific, and some would be vetted reasons (so that we do not have 15 reasons in different wording).. Imagine that users or DAOs have core values, and they apply those core values as reasons to proposals… Question is: are core values proposals themselves?? So then we are applying proposals to proposals.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
Wow, so, I think of core values as fundamental primitives that guide decision making. Those core values are represented on proposals on a distribution. You can imagine that core value A is represented to 15%, and core value B to 34%. I am not sure how you would quantify those distribution values accurately though. I would think that in order to add or remove a guiding core value you would create a proposal, which is to modify and shape the overarching governance architecture. And users would then apply their own judgement in any proposal to vote based on their preferences or whatever may be verifiable eventually, which is where the whole user reputation thingy kicks in over time.
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
