Do we have a decentralized hacker news ?<p>Something like hacker news, where users can post only after they spend a hacker coin.<p>- For posting require a hacker coin.<p>- Challenge/wrestle the validity of post by staking some amount of token.<p>- Whoever wins the argument takes the opponents token.<p>- There can be a karma component as well, where in the bad actors need to pay 1.5x amount of token if they did a bad karma last time.<p>PS : Not a fan of everything decentralization. This post was just a thought and so decided to post here.
That's one of the problems I have with this crypto stuff.<p>There is no problem with HN - it's one of the best place on the net, but hey let's imagine a solution with crypto. A solution to what exactly ? There is no problem to begin with. Just like with 99.999% of stuff that crypto is supposed to solve.<p>I know it's just a thought exercise as you posted, so no offense, but it actually greatly illustrate the state of crypto applications (in my opinion)
> - Challenge/wrestle the validity of post by staking some amount of token.<p>> - Whoever wins the argument takes the opponents token.<p>Hacker News isn't fight club, not all posts and comments are arguments seeking refutation, and there isn't a single objective "winner" or "loser" in every discussion, nor a means to judge which is which. The people who tend to see every comment as an opportunity to "score points" tend to be the worst sort for a community... attaching an economy and gamifying that would only incentivize point scoring, gambling and rules lawyering over healthy or insightful dialogue.<p>> - There can be a karma component as well, where in the bad actors need to pay 1.5x amount of token if they did a bad karma last time.<p>So I can get some bot accounts and just mass downvote or flag anyone I disagree with to make it all but impossible for them to participate in the future? Good to know, I guess.
Much of the value of HN, apart from the community, derives also from the subtle but firm moderation. I am not sure how that would work on a decentralized system.
this can easily be abused for monetary advantage.<p>Also, How do you determine who won the argument? How will the Jury decide the winner? this is all subjective<p>Winner for traditional debates between two individuals can be decided on quite simply. Whereas, for this scenario, the person staking the argument will have to defend against the whole population trying to bring it down. It won't be a "healthy" competition by any means.
I think there are a few implicit assumptions in your post that could be examined for a better proposal.<p>1. Consensus of what is valid doesn't require a tradable and fungible token so adding that game element is not required for decentralization (and I suspect would decrease the value of the service to increase the value of the game, something people are increasingly complaining about)<p>2. Most posts on Hacker News are regarding trading information, which is a not a zero sum game, unlike the game mechanics you are proposing. Both sides can be right.
> Something like hacker news, where users can post only after they spend a hacker coin.<p>You don't need the service to be decentralised to achieve this. (Or the later points) There are many hn clones - just add payment to one.<p>What's the actual motivation for the decentralised part?
Experiments are nice, but the practical usually blows up for unknown reasons.
There's no point to change the whole site when it would mean most readers getting lost or turned off.