kaal:claim:3995709-030

Crowd review and policing votes by the CRDAO collective filter out idiosyncratic reviewer preferences, because reviewers who submit highly idiosyncratic reviews would have to fear slashing and loss of standing in the community.

Instead, the CRDAO mandates that reviews are subject to crowd review and policing votes by the CRDAO collective. Accordingly, code reviewers are less likely to engage in highly idiosyncratic reviews as they would need to fear slashing and loss of standing in the community.

Wulf A. Kaal, How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards (2021), Feedback Loops, p. 15
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3995709 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3995709

• mandatory crowd review of each code review
• slashing and reputation stakes in place

mechanismsupport: arguedreputationrisk-and-incentives

• restated_by kaal:claim:4734750-024 Subjecting every review to crowd review and policing votes makes reviewers less likely to produce idiosyncrati...
• restated_by kaal:claim:4755632-030 Mandatory crowd review and policing votes make code reviewers less likely to submit highly idiosyncratic revie...

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 6d77dbfb15ee86080bfde0b98089180cabafeb6defdf0f05eaaeb3cb99871e89. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/a06d0660b969cf8b...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3995709-030.md | sha256sum