kaal:claim:3125822-046

The proposed fix is to value tokens by how the post was received and cited: tokens minted at a node with a large branch of positive references are worth more, while tokens from a post whose betting pool was close to 50-50 are worth less in future salaries than tokens from a post with uniform agreement.

Source quote, verbatim

For instance if there is a large branch of positive references based at a node, the tokens minted at that node should be worth more. If the post was contentious, and its betting pool was close to 50-50, the tokens will be worth less in future salaries than uniform agreement.

From

Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Vlad Andrei, Blockchain Infrastructure for Measuring Domain Specific Reputation in Autonomous Decentralized and A (2018), 9.2 The forum as a weighted DAG, p. 40
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3125822 · source PDF

Cite as

Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Vlad Andrei, Blockchain Infrastructure for Measuring Domain Specific Reputation in Autonomous Decentralized and A (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3125822

Holds when

requires the forum to be treated as a weighted citation graph

Classification

designsupport: arguedcitation-and-knowledgetokenomicseconomicslaw-and-legal-systems

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is d4d0bbaa3260968226186131d60e6d64a53e904d94e4295c61fd17042f1191ef. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/3b7884867edc43ea...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3125822-046.md | sha256sum