Hacker News Reader

Comment by TekMol | Hacker News Reader

My feeling is that this is either an illusion ("it will work out somehow") or a sham ("let's milk the crypto craze").

No answer to the question why selling votes should result in more accuracy. Buzzword Bingo. An overly broad approach. Lot's of social proof but thin on content. This reminds me of all those ICOs we see these days.

Looking forward to read the whitepaper. But somehow I have the feeling it will either never come or it will be just another marketing brochure without technical details.

View on HN

Before Wikipedia, the idea that an openly edited online journal would be better and more accurate alternative to Encyclopedia Brittanica would be surprising to most people.

There's two parts of the design that leads to more accuracy for DIRT:

1. Skin in the game - a token deposit to write encourages accuracy because you can lose the deposit if you are incorrect.

2. Encouraging moderation - moderators can earn tokens. If you vote and challenge correctly, you can earn tokens. This creates an economic reward for moderators that can protects the data accuracy in the long term.

We're posting the whitepaper and more importantly, launching the protocol with a first application in the coming months. Stay tuned!

    you can lose the deposit if you are incorrect

How would the system know which side is correct and which side is incorrect? From what you wrote so far, it just counts which side put in more money.

Either thats the secret sauce that got them $3m with zero openly published work, or the "who is right" is completely hand-waved over or relies on some oracle.

> How would the system know which side is correct and which side is incorrect?

Groupthink, methinks.

Using voting to establish "fact" seems like it could go very, very wrong...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com