by Dr. Chris Kacher
The beating heart of freedom of expression, freedom from tyranny, and freedom overall is the blockchain-based web3. Web3 is decentralised, private, secure, and uncensorable. Its growth is exponential. Its impact will be massive. Mass adoption will take place once its UI becomes seamless, much as AOL and Netscape made the internet easily accessible back in the mid-1990s.
No industry will be left untouched. In consequence, this decade stands to be the most transformational in the timeline of humanity. We have embarked onto the steeper part of the parabolic rise. Ideas beget ideas where change is both incremental yet accelerating as well as quantum. Great utility is being created as I type unlike the ICOs of 2017 which were mostly vaporware. Who remembers the dot-com boom of the late 1990s? Most companies died but the few with real utility survived then thrived. The rhyme applies now to blockchain technologies.
Web3 drains influence from centralised focal points of power. Vitalik Buterin, creator of Ethereum, has been a strong supporter of web3 as community-driven technology. This includes decentralised entities such as DAOs and dApps. They can co-exist out of the control of centralised entities. Governments across the globe practice some form of authoritarianism; it is just a matter of degree. In consequence, BigTech, BigBusiness, BigOil, BigFiat, BigPharma, and BigEducation have been politicised and weaponised. Freedom of speech decimated. Thought police in full force. The voices on the fringe are autocratically cast out and cancelled.
Web3 definitively gives more power to the users in bottom-up grass roots than top-down corporate fashion. The degree of decentralisation will span a spectrum.
Web3 pushes decentralisation forward. It flips the top-down approach. The implications run deep. Most gatekeepers who control the distribution of funding such as university and foundation grants avoid risk-on, breakout product in art, television, film, and science especially if the creation is contrarian, controversial, and disruptive. In consequence, the decision makers tend to fall into the conformist camps of appeasement.
Peter Thiel identified this trend in the Ivy’s, both west and east coast. He noticed how scientists with avante garde ideas that run against the narrative stand to lose reputation and funding. Groupthink has prevailed.
Meanwhile, corporate execs have to appease colleagues and shareholders. The same pandemic extends to art, music, and film where safe projects are allowed while the mutative genius projects which are too outside the box thus risky are denied.
The solution? DAOs. Funding comes from cryptowallet holders who like the project; no social pressures; just economic incentive depending on the degree of brilliance driving the projects and creations on offer.
Token 1 = Used to fund the DAO project.
Token 2 = NFTs distributed to supporters who publicly drive awareness via social media platforms.
Web2: View/listen/watch creations.
Web3: View/listen/watch/fund creations you own.
Use Case – CreationDAO
Projects and creations spawned within the CreationDAO metaverse would trade on various crypto and digital exchanges. Smart contracts would proportionately share revenues in the form of tokens across CreationDAOs where investors’ wallets would receive their share. But creation is not limited to words, art, and music. Digital exchanges such as Germany’s two leading exchanges, Boerse Stuttgart and Deutsche Boerse, will be one of the first regulated exchanges to list construction equity project tokens launched on TriQuantum Technologies OÜ platform run by the two founders Dr Chris Kacher and Mag Axel Jacob. Each project gets its own token which rises or falls in value based on the progress and successful completion of various milestones.
The fraction of cutting edge, ground-breaking product should rise as a consequence of this freedom from social convention and cultural narrative. Further, cash-starved construction projects due to onerous regulations will launch. Banks will have lower risk, higher yielding product to offer their customers in a zero interest rate world as deep savings from the elimination of “middlemen” and unnecessary layers are passed onto investors and project managers.
Use Case – TruthDAO
As the blockchain takes hold, we are moving away from argument from authority to argument from cryptography. We have proof-of-when via timestamp, proof-of-what via hash, and proof-of-who via digital signature.
Just as voter fraud is more endemic than the public would like to believe #BenfordsLaw, the conventional information supply chain is corruptible. By contrast, the cryptographic information supply chain is immutable. Blockchain voting is one of an endless number of use cases.
Likewise, relying on journalists has proven fallible. Most are subject to groupthink, swayed by editors who are swayed by cultural narrative and what sells publications, political drive notwithstanding. The trust in mainstream media is justifiably at an all-time low.
Relying on “experts” is no better. While some rise to the top in terms of reputation, this still is no way to assess the accuracy of a writer. Some rise to the top due to marketing and social media. Others because they uphold cultural narrative. But just because once-upon-a-time most believed the Earth was flat does not make it so.
Furthermore, readers are subconsciously manipulated by BigTech algos judiciously programmed by Google coders as well as Facebook and YouTube architects. #leftistpandemic
Blockchain Tracking: Instead, accuracy can be tracked on the blockchain. Distortions and lies can be identified. Reputational scores can be calculated. Such measures are a quantum jump above Google and Amazon rankings of products and restaurants even when the gaming is removed.
TruthDAO with the help of AI crawls publications to find truth and lies. A fact deemed truthful but later false from new evidence would be voted on by the participants. This dynamism would keep truthful facts up-to-date while false facts would be voted out by token holders. TruthDAO could optimise community-run Wikipedia which often contains incomplete entries. It could also prevent Wiki-gangs from suppressing certain entries because one was cancelled due to going up against BigBusiness. #anthonychristianwhistleblower
Where there is disagreement on an issue, token holders would once again have voting rights. Such rights would change in real-time as voters could change their vote at will in the event new evidence came to light especially when it comes to hotbed issues such as drugs, sex, global warming, and C19.
While AI algos could be used to assess the importance of a fact, observing breadth of global coverage alone is insufficient. The fact would have been assimilated in context with numerous other factors such as Alexa rank of the site and reputational scores of the author and publisher. Sophisticated AIs which understand the content of a story could then better rank the importance of various facts within a story.
SCORING: Each author would build a reputational scorecard based on the accuracy of their publications. A point scoring system would assign values to the following:
=Cultural or authoritarian driven misinformation/disinformation: -1
=Honest mistakes or the author notes reported fact is subject to change with new evidence: 0
Each article would show the scores for each of the above three categories as well as a grand total.
AI would have to ensure the author is not gaming the scoring system. Google’s restaurant rating system (out of five stars) has proven to be the most resistant to being gamed unlike Trip Advisor, Facebook, and other ratings systems, thus is the only source I use when needing an on-the-fly gastro evaluation.
That said, the most valuable aspect to the scoring system would be the reveal on distortions or lies. The author could then have a chance to rebut each negative score since no AI system is perfect. A real-time voting system could then decide whether to remove the negative score. Thus even if a negative were zeroed out, it could still switch back to a negative depending on new evidence, and vice-versa.
Much as public figures can launch NFTs whose value correlates with their reputation and reach, each author and publication could have a reputation-based token or NFT whose value would rise or fall depending on the accuracy of said publications. Publications within the TruthDAO ecosystem could pay readers in tokens for correcting distortions and lies as it would strengthen the article thus also boost the reputational ranking of the publication for enabling such improvements. This would incentivise publishers of all stripes to join TruthDAO. Authors who believe they accurately report the truth would also sign up as a high score would only help increase their readership.
Authors or publications with low scores could be filtered out by the user’s settings. The corrupt citadels of misinformation and disinformation would become most uneconomic.
(͡:B ͜ʖ ͡:B)