9-(L) - "Identity Management" for proposal discussions

  • -

    For the upcoming marketplace release a form of identity managment is beeing announced. Shall this identity management be used to rate comments and proposals based on their proposers “identity” (e.g. number of sells, rating on their sold items, …).

  • -

    Depending on a proven experience or expertise of a proposer, the feasibility of the proposal can better be estimated.
    Since “identity management” is still not available, thus, when posting a proposal, at least the proposers community user name (particl forum) should be added. Interested voters can try to contact the proposer or they can rate his experience based on his previous contributions at the community forum.

  • -

    Obviously identity management gonna be delayed and won’t be available with the upcoming release v3, but once available, merchants will have the possibility to build up a kind of reputation. Maybe same for community members, they could also build up a kind of reputation. On reddit for example, you first have to collect karma before you’re allowed to make certain postings.
    So what are your opinions on establishing a kind of reputation system from which making use of in the governance process? (e.g. for the proposal ranking or during proposal discussions)

    btmr 1 Reply
  • Community-active-members -

    @Pancake
    Good thought. Actually, I would only allow proposals from people with a certain reputation score to begin with. If your rep is low but you have a good idea, you can always pitch it to the community and try to get a higher-rep-member to hand in the proposal for you.

    As seen on Discord: being an open community is cool but you do get your share of ramblers or manic/obsessive characters and those should be kept in check.

    Of course it’s a chicken/egg problem. How do you gain reputation? If admins upvote your posts? If community active members upvote your post? If anyone upvotes your post?
    In the latter case, you can game the system by upvoting yourself.
    In the former cases, reputation is a grace given by a selected few, so there’s the danger that you will only gain reputation by having the “right” opinion, which would be bad for many reasons.

    Pancake 1 Reply
  • -

    @btmr
    Yes, it sounds as an interesting possibility, but as you mentioned, it’s not as easy to implement in a fair manner. We should keep this possibility in mind and collect further ideas how to address this approach. For now I’d suggest to wait until “identity management” for particl marketplace is going to be implemented and then let’s see how to proceed. ☺

  • -

    Suggestion:
    We have to be aware that due to anonymity everybody might be able to game the system. So reputation should only be used for informal purposes, e.g. for proposal discussions.
    Reputation must be tied somehow to an user-ID (maybe marketplace-key). Several reputations could be collected for each ID:

    • number of listings
    • number of positiv/negtive rated sell/buy orders
    • number of proposals created
    • number of upvoted comments on proposal discussions

    Since gaming is always possible I wouldn’t show the absolut numbers, but suggest to show on proposal discussions only the ranking of each user. Let’s say there are 4 different users commenting on a proposal.
    User 1: 20 upvotes
    User 2: 7 upvotes
    User 3: 725 upvotes
    User 4: 8 upvotes

    So based on the upvotes User 1’s characteristics for proposal upvotes would be shown as rank 2 of 4 (2/4), for User 2 (4/4), for User 3 (1/4) and for User 4 (3/4). If User 5 (36 upvotes) also adds a comment, this would change the ranking, e.g. User 1 --> (3/5), User 2 --> (5/5), User 3 --> (1/5), …
    If anybody tries to game this by creating multiple User-IDs the community could maybe downvote the corresponding users. I would also suggest to make this rankings time based. The older an upvote, the lower it’s impact on the ranking.

Log in to reply