RE: Announcing Cheddur 2.0 : An Incentivized Crypto Review Platform using a Steem SMT

[heimindanger]

Seems like a solid plan! Can you give more details about the reputation algorithm you plan to use? The STEEM reputation is kinda bad, but there are alternatives like steem-ua

Anyway I hope you don't ICO for a project like this. Give yourself some tokens and create value and utility and I think it will be more worth it for you in the long run for your project.

Finally, the 80/20 split choice seems like a terrible one. Curation is actually very important, if you are going to 80/20 it, why even bother with the 20% as curation will never be an interesting thing to do anyway in your platform?

Comments

[jmxcursi]

Hello, creator of DTube! Thank you for your comments. :)

1. In terms of designating influence within the network, we were thinking about leveraging the same principles that Steemit uses, meaning that reputation would be based on your staked account balance (which could either be bought or earned). The general thought is you'll be incentivized to use your influence for good, because if you act maliciously against the interests of the system, I'd imagine the price per token would drop on the market and, because your tokens are vested, you'll be hurting yourself financially. Thoughts on that?
2. Check out page 16 of our white paper. We are planning to run custom algorithms on top of the review system to determine a ReviewScore for each review, and averaging each ReviewScore to determine an overall rating for each crypto project. Would love to get your thoughts on this!
3. With regard to the 80/20 split, what you said makes sense! We chose this split because it seems to be close to what Steemit does, and Steemit has been very successful. Did we get that wrong? Is there a better split you would suggest?
4. Glad to hear your thoughts on the ICO debate. Are there specific reasons why you think it would be a better long-term play to not go the ICO route?

[donkeypong]

Yes, I think Steemit has proven that account size is not necessarily a guarantee that someone will act in the platform's best interest. They act in their own best interests over that of the platform, which is why the content on Steemit's trending page is junk, fueled by bidbots, fueled in turn by large stakeholders selling their votes for maximum self-interested return. The same economics will work but will progressively create a bigger mess. Account based voting is probably better than stake-based. I'd agree that higher curation rewards might help prevent some of the negative effects.

If you need the funds, you can ICO it or raise funds over time on Steemit by posting good content that gets voted up. The latter could be combined with an airdrop, which is sure to get you some fans.

[jmxcursi]

Got it - looking into Steem-UA now. Thank you for your feedback!

[jmxcursi]

1 - Got it! Are there any other rep systems aside from Steem-UA that you'd recommend we investigate?

2 - Agreed on Sybil attacks; we're trying to strike a balance. If we don't give enough weight to up-votes in the ReviewScore, then an honest minnow's up-vote would have 0 impact. So we figured we would give a 2x factor on VotePoints and see how it behaves in production. If we notice it's not working, we can always adjust the algo later and re-calculate because it's all run and computed off-chain.

Check out the examples on page 17 and 18. In traditional review systems, an entity that gets a 5-star review and a 1-star review would have a net overall rating of 3 stars because there is no differentiation between each review, they are treated equal. (1 + 5)/2 = 3. We attempt to differentiate between high and low-quality reviews via the ReviewScore, so a crypto project that gets a 1-star review and a 5-star review is likely to not have an overall score of 3, as one review may carry more weight and therefore skew the overall rating in its favor.

3 - Got it. I'll do more research on the author / curator split. Are there any other steem-based dapps that you know of that are struggling with the 75/25 ratio?

4 - Our view on the ICO is mixed. We'd like to inject capital into the project ASAP to accelerate development, but we also fear selling 55% of the token supply to a small pool of investors who's primary motivation is to dump. We're considering an airdrop to STEEM hodlers, but we also don't want to airdrop tokens to a bunch of people who are fundamentally not that interested in crypto / will never use the platform. Lastly, we're also considering starting the supply at literally 0, like Steem, and "pre-mining" some for the founders to establish initial influence in the network, and then opening it up to the public and letting the supply grow entirely through rewards.

Thank you again for all of your feedback. We're big fans of DTube, so it's an honor talking to you about this!

[jmxcursi]

We just published an updated version of the white paper that describes the token distribution I mentioned in my previous comment. Rather than doing an ICO, we think we will "pre-mine" a small pool of coins for the Cheddur team to establish initial influence on the platform. From there, rewards will be distributed out to the public via the Rewards Pool (for high-quality content, with the help of our voting) and the Bounty Program (for completing valuable actions).

We anticipate that after the first year of operation, influence on the platform by the Cheddur community will supercede the influence on the platform by the Cheddur team. This sounds like the right amount of time for us to vote and funnel CHDR tokens into the hands of a large enough set of valuable community members.

To accommodate this new design, we also reduced the starting supply of tokens from 100M --> 5M, and ramped up the inflation schedule from 4% starting with 0.5% annual decline, to 20% starting with 2% annual decline.

Would love to get your thoughts on this!