Brainstorming How to Calm the “Proof of Brain Storm” (Part 2 -- Complex Version)

in Proof of Brain6 months ago

Brainstorming How to Calm the “Proof of Brain Storm” (Part 2 -- Complex Version)


As I mentioned in a reply to @proofofbrainio’s earlier post about the 32k POB awarded for a single self-voted comment, I envisioned both a simple solution and a complex solution to that ‘crisis’ -- and the two were not mutually exclusive.

I posted my ‘simple’ solution shortly thereafter, and now I will attempt to explain the ‘complex’ solution.

Failed Explanations

I tried to explain my ‘complex’ solution to @proofofbrainio via discord quite some time ago, but I was too inarticulate to convince him to adopt any of my suggestions. He said he was cool with me trying to explain it here, in the hope that I might be able to improve my explanation and/or someone else might catch the ‘vision’ and be able to explain it better.

However, it has taken me several weeks now to find enough time to try to re-explain those initial thoughts. As such, the ‘window of opportunity’ with respect to implementing this concept for the POB token has likely passed.

Moot Already?

Also, with all that said, a ‘solution’ is no longer needed for that particular ‘proof of brain storm’. The ‘storm’ associated with the 32k excessive POB was quickly calmed with minimal disruption to the overall launch of the POB token and the website.

This is due to [1] the willingness of @no-advice to return the 32k POB tokens and to be voluntarily muted from the tribe for a month (until the excess tokens could be fully unstaked and returned), [2] @eonwarped’s swift and thorough calculation of the POB author rewards that would have been earned had that ‘excessive award’ never occurred, and [3] @proofofbrainio seeing to it that the affected authors (myself included) actually received those adjusted POB awards.

So, with all that said, this post is probably moot (as a suggestion about how to change the distribution of POB) and more of an effort to explain to a broader audience my vision of a potentially more robust way to ensure the integrity of “proof of brain” curation in general (whether it applies to POB or HIVE or LEO or STEM or CTP or ARCHON or NEOXAG or some future token).

FWIW, it is unclear to me whether the suggestion I made to @proofofbrainio several weeks ago (and will try to articulate herein) is even feasible, given the fact that the POB landscape has been established; even so, I want to put it ‘out there’ for folks to consider and critique, if not for use with POB then perhaps with some new token that is yet-to-be.

Two Tokens to Rule them All (well actually -- one to rule, one to sell)


The essence of my ‘vision’ is to utilize two tokens instead of just one. Or, you could think of it as a single token that is intentionally and irrevocably bifurcated upon issuance.

One part of the token is exchangeable and the other part is not. The exchangeable portion would be fully fungible, fully tradable, and thus would operate just the way the current POB token operates, except that it would not impart any ‘voting’ rights to its holders.

The non-exchangeable portion would be inextricably tied to the account that originally earned the token, would be automatically staked, and would be the sole token upon which future rewards (of both the fungible and non-exchangeable tokens) would be based. Both tokens would aways issue in the same amounts and to the same accounts -- hence the reason one might consider them as a single token, bifurcated at issuance.

Guarding against ‘Buying’ Influence

The net effect of this arrangement would be that no one would ever be able to ‘buy’ influence over the future distribution of either of the two tokens, because no one would be able ‘buy’ the voting tokens. The exception to this would be that an individual who has accumulated significant voting tokens (by authoring and curating quality content) could conceivably sell their account to someone looking to quickly acquire voting tokens (without actually putting in the long, hard work). I am not sure there would be any way to stop this sort of activity, so that possibility needs to be factored into the consideration.

Three Ways ...

I envisioned three different ways voting tokens could be specifically and irrevocably ‘tied’ to the account that earned them. One involves NFTs (a concept I haven’t fleshed out yet, and may not even be feasible), one involves auto-staking the voting tokens accompanied by an infinite unstaking time horizon, and the other involves the token-issuing account delegating staked voting tokens in lieu of actually issuing tokens to the recipient accounts.

Separating Investment Functionality from Proof of Brain and Proof of Stake Functionality

A primary goal of my thinking with this ‘two token’ model is to separate the ‘investment’ function of the token from the ‘proof of brain’ and ‘proof of stake’ functions.

Investors by-and-large do not care about ‘voting’ issues and would likely be less interested in holding crypto that requires them to actively do something -- especially if such action is required just to maintain their investment at its current levels. As such, POB and HIVE and LEO and similar tokens, in their current configurations, may be less attractive to investors than versions of those tokens that don’t require ongoing voting- or curation-related actions.

The Purported Benefits of a Two-Token Model …

So, to summarize, I see two potential advantages of this ‘two token’ system:

  • Greater willingness of investors to purchase and hold the exchangeable token.
  • Greater resilience against ‘hostile takeovers’ because voting shares are vested exclusively in the accounts themselves -- i.e the accounts that actually earned them.

I readily admit this is an idea that has not been fully fleshed out. As such, I eagerly and willingly invite constructive comments and criticisms.

Posted via


Uhn, but I think that would make the token exchangeable useless, so no one will want to buy the token... If the idea is to improve the rise of good content for trending, then I think it's just making the new token with each user worth 1, so whoever received the most votes would be on trending, but without the need to remove the current reward system.

I agree that this concept is too much of a departure from the norm to be readily accepted as a replacement for any existing token on Hive. Your concern is the same concern @proofofbrainio expressed in our discord convos.

Your comment that the exchangeable token would be useless would imply that bitcoin is useless. $1 trillion currently speaks to the contrary.

I think it is going to take a new experiment, which I am happy to start at some time in the not-too-distant future.

BTW, I'm not saying the new exchangeable token will usurp bitcoin; just saying that there are a LOT of investors out there seeing value in an "exchangeable-only" token that isn't even that exchangeable (given BTC's block timing, transaction throughput, and fees).

Posted via

Uh, I'm starting to understand, really using it as a currency is possible to find value. If someone creates a plugin and payment gateway for websites and stores, it would help a lot to happen.

using it as a currency is possible to find value

Yes. And Tesla's recent Terms & Conditions related to purchasing a Tesla with BTC highlights the 'Bitcoin Flaw' that I wrote about here and here (and will be writing about again, hopefully sometime soon).

If you end up returning the Tesla you bought with BTC (e.g. under a "lemon law"), Tesla gets to decide whether to return what you paid in units of BTC or units of USD.

Who wants to use an exchange currency that wildly fluctuates in value? An exchange currency should be a stable measuring stick by which you can compare goods and services at any given point in time and over time.

I believe POB (as currently constituted) represents an improvement over BTC in that regard (and that will be the subject of my in-the-near-future "Bitcoin Flaw (Part 3)" post). However, I believe a bifurcated POB (e.g. exchangeable-only POBx, and voting-only POBv) would be better, because the decentralization force (the proof-of-brain and proof-of-stake functions) would become (mostly) immune to the influence of whales and hostile takeovers.

 6 months ago Reveal Comment

I don't know how economically feasible this would be. It probably won't see many investors and most people in HIVE treat community tribe tokens as a way to generate more tokens. I do think there will be takers of the token as it will be extra rewards but I feel people will naturally pick PoB over this until PoB shows a huge problem.

Personally I think the infinite unstaking horizon seems to be the best of the three options. Think of it this way, someone can unstake but they only get 1/4 or some fraction of their total staked tokens. Then afterwards you can see that it would naturally become hard for anyone to completely get rid of their stake because half of it would belong to the account who acquired it. This means people can still buy it and upgrade their influence but as someone who did not acquire it themselves, it means they can only buy up a certain amount of influence and makes attacking the network hard.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Interesting idea, what value does the sellable token have?

Same as BTC or BCH or BSV. The advantage over BTC and the BTC derivatives would be that literally ANYONE can earn it, by posting valuable content and being rewarded for it; rather than all the new tokens going to miners who have to invest in expensive equipment to participate in the token's inflation.

BTC investors don't care about the fact that miners earn the inflation tokens. And if Satoshi had 'required' BTC holders actively participate in mining (rather than separating the 'investment' function from the 'mining' function), very few "investor" types would have ever jumped on board, imho.

Also, the advantage over those is 3-second block validation (vs. 10-minute) coupled with zero transaction fees.

A HUGE advantage of proof-of-brain distribution is that it is open to the masses. Another huge advantage is that, because it is open to the masses, it naturally leads to mass adoption -- the network effect is what will ultimately allow HIVE or one of the tokens on the Hive blockchain to overtake BTC and the BTC derivatives (in terms of adoption and usage, not necessarily in terms of market cap).

BTC is being pumped by institutional investors. HIVE (or the alternative I am proposing) will predominantly be 'pumped' by everyday people. The alternative I am proposing allows for both/and -- investors PLUS everyday people.

That makes sense thanks for that, does it lose value ( or utility is guess) if it cannot generate more POB via curating or staking to other people

does it lose value ( or utility is guess) if it cannot generate more POB via curating or staking to other people

No one can reliably answer that question in advance. I look at BTC, BCH, BSV and others like those and say, apparently not.

Granted, those coins are viewed as 'fully decentralized' (even though they technically are not, due to the vast amounts of hashing power residing within a relatively few number of mining pools) and POB is not (yet) decentralized.

However, I believe POB can (and will) eventually be decentralized. If the decentralization mechanism is similar to Hive Layer 1, then that would make an exchangeable-only version of POB (e.g. "POBx") (bifurcated from the PoS and PoB functions, but still dependent upon the PoB/PoS token for the distribution of new POBx) the closest thing ever to Satoshi's original vision of A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, imho.

However, I believe that the hive-engine tokens are not immutable, I mean, the token owner can theoretically issue new tokens if he wishes, in btc/hive this is totally impossible, as it depends on the consensus of all miners to make a change in the network.

the hive-engine tokens are not immutable, I mean, the token owner can theoretically issue new tokens if he wishes

Currently, yes. I believe the ultimate plan is to decentralize Hive-Engine or to at least enable robust decentralization of the tokens operating thereon.

Is that correct, @aggroed?

If they manage to decentralize the issuance of the tokens, then it would be really reliable.

Yes, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to accomplish that.

in btc/hive this is totally impossible, as it depends on the consensus of all miners to make a change in the network

With Hive, it requires a huge super-majority (17 of 20).

However, with BTC, it could be done by controlling only 51% of the hashing power, which currently would only require the collusion of less than a handful of mining conglomerates.

 6 months ago Reveal Comment

Currently it is not possible to become a whale just through purchases and if current trends continue that should continue to be the case. There will be opportunities for investors when people who have earned the tokens decide to sell them, but investors will have to compete for those opportunities.

No doubt outside investors who want influence will drive up the price in trying to gain that influence, which will benefit all current hodlers. However, I can foresee an investor doing just that -- it would take a patient but persistent investor, I think. And I can't say that would fundamentally be 'bad'.