Introduction

I present to you the description of Aleo/wiki. With Wikipedia experience, I have sincerely tried to get rid of the biggest bugs. You will definitely not find a rating system in this specification, because I believe that it is more productive to evaluate the work of people at any given time, rather than using rating coefficients. This will allow beginners to be always on a par with experienced participants in opportunities, and old-timers to keep themselves in good shape, constantly improving their content.

Description

The user will be required to activate the address and make a deposit from 10$ to 100 $ in native token.

At the entrance, there will be detailed instructions where all the necessary resources will be indicated to get started.

The entire system is built on an already refined model - the connection between users and validators.

Keeping all pages decentralized looks expensive, so it uses the same page, but every edit requires an on-chain vote. Mechanisms for stimulating the speed of processing articles and edits are given below.

There are only 3 roles in this specification:

CR - Article Creator RW - Editor JD - Judge

And everyone at the same time can be both one and the other and all at once. We have experience in verifying and signing an article using metamask – we can use the same way After writing an article or making an edit, the text can be sent via: use a third-party browser extension through the site

This will be analogous to a digital signature. Voting will work the same way.

When submitting an article, you will need to specify a tag, which can also be changed by making an edit.

Since all the deposited funds are sent to freeze, it will not be profitable for the participant to add insignificant edits, because not only will he not receive a reward, but he will also lose his bet The participant will strive to check the text faster than anyone else and find the maximum number of errors, complete the text or add illustrations. Also, all the rest, as judges, will be interested in checking new edits faster, since such a concept as the speed of making a decision has been introduced into the economic model. The earlier the vote is cast, the more rewards can be received. Both editing and voting require participants to balance quality and speed.

Remuneration for judges will be calculated on the basis of the prevalence of the number of votes cast for a particular decision. An article cannot be changed until the previous revision is finally accepted or rejected. The voting time will be determined for each text, most likely in proportion to the number of characters. Since it will not be possible to give an answer immediately, as well as to start another vote from one address, it will not be profitable for the judges to put down marks at random. This will threaten the loss of the deposit.

Economics and formulas

Description of block number 2:

CR - Article Creator

RW - Editor

JD - judge

M-money

M (CR) - ALEO.TOKEN paid for creating an article = 75 $

M (RW) - ALEO.TOKEN paid for making an edit = 25 $

M (JD) - ALEO.TOKEN paid for the cast vote = 10 $

R-reward is the total reward received from all sources.

R (CR) - ALEO.TOKEN earned for successful article creation

R (RW) - ALEO.TOKEN earned for successful edit

R (JD) - ALEO.TOKEN earned for a successful cast vote

R1-reward from Aleo`s  fund (possibly created in the future) or private investor

R1 (CR) = M (CR) - ALEO.TOKEN received in excess of the rate for successful article creation

R1 (RW) = Mnew (RW) - ALEO.TOKEN received in excess of the rate for a successful edit

R1 (JD) = M (JD) - ALEO.TOKEN received in excess of the rate for a successful cast vote in the number N1

N- The number of judges who took part in a single vote.

N = N1 + N2

N1 - The number of judges who cast votes, the sum of which reached the majority

N2 - The number of judges who cast votes, the sum of which did NOT reach the majority

LOST Money

LM (CR) - ALEO.TOKEN paid for creating an article that was not accepted

LM (RW) - ALEO.TOKEN paid for making changes that were not accepted

LM (JD) - the amount of ALEO.TOKEN paid for the votes cast, the amount of which did NOT reach the majority (N2)

The article was adopted in its original form

The total creator reward is paid after 1 month of freeze R (CR) = R1 (CR) + 0.5 * LM (JD) M (CR) returns.

Remuneration of each judge R (JD) = R1 (JD) + 0.5 * LM (JD) / N1 M (JD) of each N1 is returned

Voting time up to 30 days

The article is NOT adopted in its original form

The creator loses the invested funds

M (CR) = LM (CR) - the fund is replenished

Remuneration of each judge

R (JD) = R1 (JD) + LM (JD) / N1

M (JD) of each N1 is returned

Voting time up to 30 days

The article is in standby mode and available for editing

Although each contributor will strive to make corrections found as early as possible, it may turn out that the article requires a high level of knowledge. In order to motivate to make edits to the most difficult articles, the reward will be increased by increasing the entry threshold M (RW) by 1% every day, therefore increasing the reward in case of successful editing.

Мnew (RW) = М (RW) + М (RW) * 0.01 * T (number of days)

Article changed - revision accepted

Total editor's remuneration:

R (RW) = R1 (RW) + 0.5 * LM (JD)

M (RW) is back.

To speed up the introduction of edits and voting for them, the author's remuneration will be distributed in the first month until the threshold of 30% of R (CR) is reached

This will be an additional motivation for the creator to submit the finished work counting on the least number of edits.

R (JD) = R1 (JD) + 0.5 * LM (JD) / N1 + R (CR) * 0.1

M (JD) of each N1 is returned

Voting time up to 30 days

Article changed - revision NOT accepted

Remuneration of each judge

R (JD) = R1 (JD) + LM (JD) / N1

M (JD) of each N1 is returned

Editor loses investment

M (RW) = LM (RW) - the fund is replenished

Voting time up to 30 days

8. Problem solving

General

• Uneven development & The low quality of articles Articles with complex topics are harder to edit. According to our model, this means that the creator can count on the fact that his reward R (CR) will not decrease from numerous edits by third-party people, which motivates the writer to initially write complex correct text on rare topics. Of course, a counter argument was invented for balance, which depends on time. Such a system will work forever and independently.

• The (low) value of contributions Evaluation of different types of work is evaluated in different ways. The payment of the deposit was carefully worked out. It not only consists of subsidies from a Aleo`s FUND, but also includes a model for self-development without direct infusion of money. The main advantage is the flow of reward from one participant to another. The line of competition is clearly visible here. All figures are set out in an economic model.

• Personal expertise with no weight People and experts will not have to face the personal opinion of any participant, as well as follow a long list of empty bureaucratic rules - everything is decided by consensus. It's simple - if the article is good and exciting, it is posted, everyone appreciates the work: experts and amateurs, old-timers and newbies.

General stuff

• Notability Fame is an ambiguous concept.

  If before the writing of the article the subject of the description was unknown, then at least now the participants of the ALEO`s wiki know about the subject. Can't it be considered newfound fame? Individuals should not decide for everyone - let the consensus (DAO) decide. There is nothing wrong with describing yourself or the company, or with a veiled offer. According to the consensus system, overt advertising or biased opinions will not be admitted to placement.

  A really interesting neutral approach to describing a controversial subject can serve as a key to understanding what the community needs. Perhaps a clear structure of the description and a sober look at reality will allow you to place an article on the site.

  The concept of "clear structure" is not required and will not be spelled out anywhere, except for small recommendations in the form of tips. On the other hand, it is important for a writer to initially clearly and correctly convey his text using competent formatting, as well as to avoid subjectivity.

• Bureaucracy

  From personal experience, I can say that after reading all the rules of Wikipedia, the participant is more likely to give up this venture before starting to write an article. Therefore, above in the text we have already discussed that we will not apply rigid measures and templates for structuring. Everyone is free to choose the style and format of the description. The main thing is the contribution and usefulness from the point of view of all participants, and this will be decided by consensus.

• Consensus The ability to edit certain concepts forever and endlessly is a personal desire of the editors. They will spend funds increasing the number of transactions on the network and increasing the total fund. In the end, either the majority wins, which means a constant influx of allies (new netizens) of a certain variant of the text. Or unwillingness to spend will win, leading to discussion and consensus.

• Lack of onboarding

  As for the lack of adaptation and the high entrance threshold in the traditional Wikipedia, we described the solution in p1.

• There can be only one Wikipedia In this system, as already mentioned about the absence of the concept of administration, any of your proposals can be put to a vote and a consensus can be reached.

Social mechanics

• Projects and groups

  We can ensure the presence of groups and clubs of interest, as well as their active work, by introducing a semblance of off-chain drafts.

  Inside, you can change the text according to your own preferences off-chain. The members of the group will themselves be interested in active members, because their common work will be fed from the group. Consequently, no one in the group is interested in paying for idleness and sharing funds according to the smart contract equally between the participants (active and inactive). Inside the sub-group, it will be possible on-chain to resolve issues of group membership and distribute rewards.

• Patrolling

  Patrolling is described above. Unlike wikipedia, anyone can be a patrol (editor). His reward will directly depend on the speed of finding errors, their number, and their argumentation. Because all edits go through on-chain voting, the participants are interested in accepting or rejecting the edits as soon as possible in order to receive a reward, before others do it. Consequently, there will be no accumulation of minor and minor edits.

• Administration

  The ability for everyone to be at any time in the capacity of any role (creator, judge or editor) provides a constant circulation of active people and the elimination of stagnant elements who want to live only thanks to past merits. This approach is detrimental to the project and contributes to the accumulation of power among the old-timers. There is no such error in this system.

Articles and actions

• Article creation Since a certain amount of time is given for each vote. Each participant is interested in materially casting his vote for or against the article as soon as possible until the voting ends.

  Consequently, the articles do not accumulate and receive a wide coverage of opinions from different people of different competencies and views. No comment is required because the sample of judges is very large - we will consider the decision made - the opinion of the majority about the usefulness or uselessness of the article.

  The path to refinement can be through joining a group of like-minded people to create quality content.

  Groups will attract newcomers with increased rewards, or organize competitions for ideas for articles, searching for sources, and drawing illustrations.

  On the other hand, no one bothers to choose an independent path of development or create your own association.

• Article deletion

  To begin with, a term such as deleting an article will be very rare. Since the decision to post an article is made by many people, the decision to remove it can be made:

  • only when there is a sharp change in the views of the same group • an increase in the number of participants and a blurring of the initial opinion about theusefulness of the article.

  but suppose that is what happened.

  The process of deleting an article can be done by analogy with the process of creating it. Yes, anyone can either make edits or apply for deletion. The only thing is that a request for deletion costs more than making an edit. The decision to delete is also made through consensus. The speed of response of the participants and their interest has already been described above in the text. Only a decentralized approach and a maximum sample of evaluators will give an objective result. Spamming requests for deletion are unlikely to be frequent since no one wants to spend money on a deliberately biased losing approach.

• Article recreation The process of recreating an article is not necessary in this system. If the creator is not satisfied with the decision of the majority to delete, he can resubmit the text at any time, finalizing and improving it. If there is no improvement and the majority refuses to post it again and again, this means more likely that the article is useless, and the creator, by his stubbornness, adds funds to the general pool to reward the rest of the participants.

Other stuff

• Templates

  The use of templates is not necessary, but in an effort to get a positive response about the placement of the article, the author will take the initiative in competently structuring the text, formatting it, using markup and adding illustrations. After all, his reward directly depends on the number of edits.

• Internet censorship

  Privacy is at the heart of the ALEO-ecosystem. Since in this version of the Aleo`s wiki we refuse any centralized tools, there is no need to block ip addresses, as well as unnecessary filtering of users. Public key can be used as username.

• Wikipedia and money

  The economic model is described at the very beginning of the specification

• Sanctions

  There is no sense in blocking users, for their actions they pay a contribution to the fund. In the event of spam or sabotage, these users will lose their contributions as a result of consensus. This practice will destroy all desire for destructive activity. Even if a person or group does not stop wanting to harm, the majority is unlikely to approve such articles or edits, and their contribution will be useful to pay for other important activities.

Conclusion.

ZK technology opens up truly huge opportunities for us, and this project can easily be created on the basis of ALEO. Thanks to the advanced code base of the LEO programming language, we can say with confidence that every day we will be able to see more and more implemented applications - private and decentralized.