"The Knowledgecoin ecosystem has the unique quality that all concepts, context, logic and reasoning can be examined and self-validated by every member of the community."
The masses cannot be trusted to determine what is true, false, accurate, or even inaccurate. We live in a world where 75% of the population believes that God snapped his metaphysical fingers and created the universe — all with zero evidence, barring some books written by bronze age authors.
This video comes to mind:
https://youtu.be/6NTkXIidCU0?t=25
IMO, it would be better to have information validated by those with the credentials to do so, rather than letting anybody have their say.
The masses cannot be trusted to determine what is true, false, accurate, or even inaccurate. We live in a world where 75% of the population believes that God snapped his metaphysical fingers and created the universe — all with zero evidence, barring some books written by bronze age authors.
This video comes to mind:
https://youtu.be/6NTkXIidCU0?t=25
IMO, it would be better to have information validated by those with the credentials to do so, rather than letting anybody have their say.
You are not wrong.
A simple "1 man, 1 vote" system ends in disaster. But what I am proposing is that every single member of the community must (as a knowledge consumer) be able to self-verify a claim for themselves as needed. To submit and vote on new claims (as a knowledge producer) one has to have a successful track record of being proven right by the DAO and something at stake if one is wrong.
I know this is a thorny thicket, but I think if the arguments can be broken down into small enough modules, there is a pathway through.
M
knowledgecoin.io