Individual karma for participants

As we know, “triple truths” emerge for all participants confirming triples, which generally increases the level of confidence in consensus, but not enough.
I suggest that the team consider improving the consensus by assigning “confidence levels” to participants. For every “triple truth” voted incorrectly, the trust level would drop, and conversely, if the participant voted correctly, their karma would increase. This is just one option for increasing the karma of an individual participant. It might be worth thinking about how you can reward individual accounts for doing their job responsibly. For example, a “triple truth” that should be affirmed rather than rejected. After all, we realize that consensus now gives a margin of error of ±10-15% from objectively correct citations. Perhaps this path is more difficult for developers, but individual trusted accounts can make an additional useful contribution and influence consensus work so that correct triples are not rejected. And at the same time provide motivation for responsible contributors.
Please give us your opinion.
Respectfully, Nick.

1 Like