Decentralised Peer Review. In memory of Aaron Swartz
with Scientia intention is to create an ecosystem to share knowledge and never having coerion to be right. All these years of reading academic papers has always left me wondering why constructive critism has generally seem to have abated. To my understanding the process of publishing an academic paper has often looked at as a dilatory process. To reinforce an ecosystem to exchange ideas and knowledge to be free flowing. Scientia will consist of governance, a fair incentive system and eventually an ecosystem. This one is for the community and I wish to see a day where knowledge isn't so proprietary anymore
The governance employeed in Scientia is fork from Aave-Governance-v2. Thank you guys at Aave and BGD labs for your awesome contributions.
- Create Proposal
- Vote
- Voting Power
- Proposing Power
- Cancel Proposal
- Publication
Just like any other peer review institutions Scientia will distribute preferential powers to the more active members of the ecosystem. The proposing/voting power is equal to total account governance tokens + delegated account tokens. There are two cases to consider here, one where account having enough proposing power to propose a new proposal. Secondly one where account does not have enough proposing power, considering this the governance will allow accounts to delegate proposing power to other accounts for proposal. Although there is small possiblity of emergence of secondary markets just to surmount, this will cause an overall bad UX for anyone who is a new proposer without any support from other members of the ecosystem. To overcome the problem a gurdian will be employeed until a suited solution to the problem is established.
To Create a proposal one must have enough proposing power or delegated proposing power to propose a research paper. The proposer makes a small contribution the treasury despite it
Vote is can be considered as a fundamental function for the members of the DAO to come a consensus pertaining to the correctness of a proposed academic research paper.
The publication success algorithm is borrowed from aave governance v2
-
The voting power (in % of total voting power) of for-votes needs to reach the quorum set by the
MINIMUM_QUORUMparameter, and -
The difference between for-votes and against-votes (in % of total voting power) needs to exceed the vote differential threshold set by the
VOTE_DIFFERENTIALparameter.
Now, comes the fun part. A protocol's quality can characterized by the balance maintained between incentives for its actors and the negative reinforcement for a bad one. Pertainent to that once the proposal is passed and published, the accounts which coequally voted as the outcome of the proposal are rewards with freshly minted governance tokens, in contrast, the accounts which voted support opposite to the outcome of the proposal, the fine is collected which is then contributed to the treasury. The mechanism as it stands is in a very rudimentary state, further enhancement to the mechanism is expected.