DNN: The Platform to create, review, and consume news
News platform, combining news creation with decentralized networks to deliver factual content, curated by the community
Co-Founder & CEO Product & Design
Samit is an experienced web and mobile designer/product developer, who co-founded a messaging app startup called MiniChat, Inc., along with his partner Dondrey. Together, they also created a video and photo app called Tack Video. He has 7+ years of startup experience, having worked at other startups before this. He follows UI/UX design, mobile technology, and emerging technology- especially all the unique ways in which we can explore social interaction and incentivized networks. This is what eventually led to his love of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. As of now, he designs DNN's interface and defines its overall experience. Lastly, he has also taken part in running a large scale ETH mining operation with Dondrey.
Tech & Development
Dondrey is a seasoned web and mobile full stack developer, who was the co-founder and CTO of MiniChat, Inc. He is also one of the creators of Tack Video. He holds a B.S. in Information Technology with a specialization in systems architecture. His passion for blockchain based services began from a love of neural networks. Before creating DNN, he took part in building one of the top Ether mining farms, where he was tasked with building various types of mining rigs. He is currently working on DNN's front-end and back-end codebase (its Ethereum smart contracts) and implementing ways to distribute the DNN application between network nodes.
Project Manager R&D engineer @ Devana Labs
Mališa is Chief R&D engineer at Devana Labs, has been working on decentralized platforms for a while. Currently, his main focus is rapid prototyping and MVP development, especially in the context of blockchain/ethereum apps. He loves naming things that no one has named, because he believes that, when you do that you get new patterns and a whole new world. This is especially true in the context of MVP's in the building phase. His two favorite technical debt patterns are human-centric agile methodology™ and Product-Abstractness Continuum Fit. He loves to mix and match this with sacrificial architecture, Strangler patterns, Atwood’s Law, and Dietlzer’s law, in order to plan and execute the best MVP building phase possible.
Solidity Developer Software developer @ Devana Labs
Andrej is a freelance software developer with more than 10 years of coding experience and a great breadth of technical knowledge and skills. Generally passionate about innovative and leading edge technologies, his current primary focus is on decentralized technologies such as blockchain. He has been following Ethereum platform from its very inception and started doing Solidity development last year.
Solidity Developer Software developer @ Devana Labs
Uros is a software developer, working at Devana Labs. He works on various decentralized, secure email services, and is primarily focused in developing encrypted backends. He’s a strong believer in lifetime studying and the fact that anyone he meets knows something that he doesn’t, which means that every person can teach him something new. He is a Junior Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling champion. His big passions are free speech, information security, AI, and dogs.
Advisor Chief Digital Officer @ LittleThings
Justin is a chief digital officer with years of experience running both product and revenue at LittleThings, the largest women's lifestyle URL on the web. He intimately understands the opportunities and challenges that come from running a platform that reaches millions of people per day. Beyond his digital media experience Justin is a also a programmer who is fascinated by blockchains and believes adamantly in their potential. Festa is a graduate of Lehigh University with a dual major in Computer Science and Business.
Advisor Research Director @ Smith + Crown
Matt Chwierut is the Research Director at Smith + Crown. He guides a research team in evaluating new cryptocurrency protocols, authoring briefing memos on key emerging topics, and reviewing countless white papers. His background includes research and consulting on emerging technologies, cross-sector innovations, and applied economics.
Advisor CEO @ Gangly Sister LLC
Rebecca (Grace) Rachmany is a serial entrepreneur, founder and CEO of Gangly Sister LLC, a new media company with the mission of transforming how girls are portrayed in the media. Grace has held management positions in technology companies for over 25 years, and has served as CEO of Tech Tav and Marketecht, profitable services companies. She recently founded IwriteICOwhitepapers.com, a service company for the cryptocurrency market. Grace is Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Swisscontact, mentoring startups in emerging economies. In the past, she has mentored at Microsoft Ventures and Google Startup Wednesdays. She holds an MBA from Kellogg Northwestern and is a graduate of Anthony Robbins' Business Mastery and Landmark's Team Management and Leadership Program.
Advisor Founder and Former CEO @ Global DCX
Aly Madhavji is the Founder and Former CEO of Global DCX, an innovative technology company launching secure digital currency exchanges across the globe starting in India. He is also an avid investor in early stage companies, digital currencies, and Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). He has served on various token advisory boards including Polymath and Jet8 and traditional advisory roles including the University of Toronto’s Governing Council. He is an internationally acclaimed author, publishing three books, including the award-winning book titled, “Your Guide to Succeed in University”, as part of the Succeed Series. He has lived and worked across 4 continents (North/South America, Europe, and Asia) with PwC, PayPal, Microsoft, Bloomberg, and INSEAD. He also holds the Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, and Chartered Investment Manager designations.
Aly is a Schwarzman Scholar, holds a Master’s in Business Administration from INSEAD (Singapore and France), and a Bachelor of Commerce with Distinction from the University of Toronto.
Advisor Co-Founder and CEO @ Compass News
Mayank is the co-Founder and CEO of Compass News. Compass is an AI-driven curation platform, designed to offer an alternative to the echo chambers and fake news of social media. Compass is backed by some of the leading lights in the international media, including the ex-Editor of the Times and former CEO of the Guardian.
Before Compass, Mayank worked at KPMG and was also President of the Oxford Union, a debating society which counts 5 British Prime Ministers as alumni. He studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University, and has experience living and working in India, China and Russia.
- Crowdsale (40%)
- Pre Sale (20%)
- Advisors (14%)
- Retained by DNN (11%)
- Founders (10%)
- Writer Accounts (4%)
- Bounty (1%)
- Administrative (35%)
- Development (40%)
- Legal (10%)
- Marketing (10%)
- Mescellaneous (5%)
Cost of the token1200 tokens for 1 eth
Price without discounts
1st Week - Bonus 100% (1ЕТН=2400 DNN)
2st Week - Bonus 50% (1ЕТН=1800 DNN)
Rate the project
Estimate the project on a five-point scale or switch to the simple scale
Estimate the project on a simple scale or switch to the five-point scale
Relevance of the problem and Market size
Founders, Team & Advisors
Budget allocation and roadmap
Token economy, Tokenization & Business model
Distribution & Lock up of tokens, Discounts for early buyers
Summary rate the project
Rate the project by other users6
It is an interesting project which represents decentralized news platform that integrates the creation of news with decentralized networks as a means of delivering actual content, tested by the community of readers, writers and reviewers. The main goal of the platform is to present news as accurately as possible, without any corrupt incentives or hidden programs , which damage most news corporations.
Risks and disadvantages
This is a very promising project, the only its minus is still weak practical implementation of all decentralized systems, which in theory look very competitive, but in practice it is less winning. Actually, in practice everything is far from being that good and shortcomings and poorly thought out organization of the process and immediately visible.
I think that under certain conditions this project has a chance for a good growth in the long period. If the team manage to run the test version, it will be successful, then without a doubt the project will attract many users.
The Ethereum blockchain is more reliable and has more sophisticated technology. Providing a decentralized system reduces on the chances of manipulation of the content found within the system. The advisers have handled digital currencies projects before meaning they have experience.
Risks and disadvantages
The current media houses might not be able to give up their market share to the competition and this most likely because they serve an extremely large market and can manipulate the information shared with the public. The fact that the token hold function is not practiced makes it less profitable. The fact that the its individuals putting in this information on the news site its possible for it to be exaggerated or even not accurate
There is an existent problem of biased news but the project does not provide an outstanding solution to it because the possibility of exaggeration and providing wrong news. I my position i see a lot of unclear things about the effective working of this project without antagonizing peoples peace. One might need to scrutinise this venture fully before engaging.
People on the platform will be provided with authentic news that hasn't been corrupted. Allocation of the budget and partitioning is good and favours activities like marketing and development of the project.
Risks and disadvantages
The chances of this particular project, DNN to out compete the current news and media outlets is extremely narrow of which they might not be willing to give up their market share. with the current market structure DNN might face static growth since the market size for the problem being solved is small. More people need to be invited and engaged on the social media platforms.
Such a platform will help to bring out the hidden and censored facts that are not shown in the regular new outlets it is also going to contribute to bringing justice to those implicated in commiting fawls without the being able to manipulate ofr sensor the details. chances of exceling oare of a low probability.
The Whitepaper answers questions about mechanism of choosing content and voting for content. It contains interesting things, like Shelling points. The team did a good job. I believe they really know how the technical work should be done.
Risks and disadvantages
Readers will pay for access. I am not sure that such a condition will be attractive for many users. I suppose in the beginning when the platform is not popular yet, the project will use retained funds for payments to creators of the news, but the funds are limited. There are other ways, but then the project will face inflation. Actually I didn`t find any explanations on this subject.
A very interesting project... The team has their own vision of how news platform should work. Unfortunately business model is not the best thing about it.
The platform removes the need for advertisers. It`s interesting. I think this is a strong competitive advantage because a lot of projects get rewards for displaying advertisement. This platform will be much more attractive for many users.
Risks and disadvantages
Founders and advisors own 24% of tockens. I think it`s too much. Huge bonuses are offered during Pre-ICO.
I think the alternative to the mainstream media is really needed. But I don`t know if this project will be this alternative.
Good work with the press, publications in notable mass media.
Risks and disadvantages
It takes a very long time to make a platform work.
A small part of the budget is allocated to marketing. It is unacceptable in such a highly competitive market.
Low traffic statistics.
Too high bonuses for pre-ISO, a large share of tokens are allocated to the presale. High probability of mass drop of tokens after ICO end.
It's not clear why the price of tokens should grow, how shoul appear a deficit on tokens.
Hardly tokens would be in demand as utility.
A lot of similar projects are better organized and implemented. It is unlikely that this project will be able to withstand competition, especially taking into account that the launch of the working version would not happen soon.
What is the Decentralized News Network (DNN)?
DNN, or Decentralized News Network, is a news platform combining news creation with decentralized networks to deliver unbiased, credible content — and the chance to be rewarded for contributions.
DNN will harness the benefits of the Ethereum blockchain to allow for an infrastructure that can never be infiltrated or taken down. Since computing power will not be consolidated, DNN won’t suffer from having a single point of failure — something that exposes most companies when their security is compromised.
DNN’s core purpose is to present an open news platform, community curated and funded, without corrupt incentives or hidden agendas that plague most news corporations.
DNN’s news will focus exclusively on the balanced-and-factual observation of current affairs, rather than opinion and propaganda.
What is the advantage of DNN over a traditional news media company? How does this guarantee the central team is unbiased?
The review process is rooted in game theory, which is where the reward/penalty structure comes into place. The process of review will hopefully get users to behave.
To become a reviewer, a user needs to put forth a certain amount of tokens. Since reviewing articles costs tokens, which can potentially be lost if a reviewer ends up voting against the majority, we hope the structure will prohibit reviewers from voting blindly or in a biased manner. This is because the cost of voting blindly without reviewing outweighs the cost of reviewing according to our guidelines for how to properly review an article.
Each reviewer must cast a vote, known as the “personal vote,” for which a reviewer says a “yes” or “no” to an article according to our guidelines.
In short, it’s possible that a reviewer can say whatever he wants without reviewing properly, but if that’s the case, the reviewer will lose his initial stake if their vote turns out to be wrong. This introduces a harsh penalty for reviewers attempting to game the system. The aspect of anonymity also helps to prevent reviewer collusion if multiple reviewers try to rig the votes. There is no centralized review team and none of the reviewers for a specific article are aware of each other's identity.
Based on our research of blockchain-based networks, we believe everyone on the platform will want to maximize their personal gain and act out of greed. In this case, that’s a good thing, because more reviewers will act in the best interest of the system if the rewards are high enough and the penalties are sufficiently harsh. We’re confident that reviewers will vote in a proper manner. Of course, it’s possible that all seven reviewers assigned to an article don’t vote properly, but the probability of that happening seems too low, considering that they’re all working for a specific reward and don’t even know how the other reviewer is voting. If that does happen, we’d have measures to simply take an article down.
Eliminating bad behavior completely is not possible and shouldn’t be the goal. Even those who are attempting to abuse the system are still doing work. Any compensation they get for their successful attempts to abuse is at least valuable for the purpose of distributing the token. All that is necessary is for us to ensure that abuse isn’t so rampant that it undermines the incentive to do real work in support of the DNN and causes the value of the DNN token to plummet.
I think Steem put it the best. Here is an excerpt from their whitepaper:
"The goal of building a community currency is to get more “crabs in a bucket” already full of crabs. Going to extreme measures to eliminate all abuse is like attempting to put a lid on the bucket to prevent a few crabs from escaping and comes at the expense of making it harder to add new crabs to the bucket. It is sufficient to make the walls slippery and give the other crabs sufficient power to prevent others from escaping."
Another example would be like forcing every car manufacturer to impose a reduction in the speed of their cars to jogging speed, all because a few people continue to break driving laws. In our case, as long as we impose a penalty high enough that it will deter others from even attempting to misbehave, the review process should work.
We just need to have measures in place (e.g. the reviewer stake), to ensure that voting randomly and without feedback causes the user to lose tokens. If we did see such behavior from one or a few reviewers, the probability of an anonymous set of reviewers, with no chance of communicating with one another, colluding to accept or reject articles that otherwise shouldn't have been accepted/rejected — is quite low.
We have outlined measures in our white paper to help reduce manipulation of the review process, but of course, they can always be strengthened. The advantage of all this over a traditional media company comes down to a potential incentive structure that puts the users in charge, without the need for any corporate influence.
From our perspective, we're trying to formulate the best plan possible to prevent fake news from appearing on the platform. Of course, absolute perfection is unattainable; but we still require some fact-checking layer from the community to distinguish between what's real and what's not. Our preference is to introduce rewards and punishments within the review, rather than after the fact.
What gives reviewers authority? How can readers trust the reviewer process?
A user contributes a certain amount of tokens as a stake to become a reviewer. Users have no foreknowledge of the articles they bid on, but rather that they are staking to become selected to review. At the end of the bidding period, seven reviewers will be assigned to each reviewer in the article submission queue. Our review process primarily consists of checking sources for statements that are presented as facts. Writers must produce content that contains references and citations that can traced back. Readers should be able to see each source a writer has used. This process enables readers to reach their own conclusions about the veracity of a piece and the review process.
How do you plan to police writers’ personal biases?
Since reviewing articles costs tokens, which can potentially be lost if a reviewer ends up voting against the majority, we hope that this will prohibit reviewers from voting in a biased manner. The cost of voting blindly without reviewing outweighs the cost of reviewing, according to our guidelines. Each reviewer will need to cast a “personal vote,” for which a reviewer says a “yes” or “no” according to the guidelines. It’s possible that a reviewer can say whatever he wants when voting without reviewing properly, but if so, the reviewer will lose his stake if their vote turns out to be wrong. This introduces a harsh penalty for reviewers seeking to game the system because it would cost more for them to do so.
How will the blockchain make a difference in reporting news?
Once an article is published it will enjoy the immutability of the blockchain. The blockchain also allows DNN to become a platform that encourages honest journalistic practices by introducing incentives that rewards this kind of positive behavior.
Further, the more articles a writer constructs that are deemed factual by reviewers, the more tokens they can earn.
The closer a reviewer adheres to DNN’s content guidelines, the greater the chance his vote will match the majority of reviewers. Similarly, the more readers suggest topics of interest, the more potential payout they can earn for each suggestion.
Without the blockchain, this kind of model wouldn't be possible because of the bias of the platform would lean towards bringing in value from ads. As we have seen, an ad-centric news organization can lead to sensationalistic stories and clickbait that has o other use than to attract views at the expense of quality journalism.
How will you ensure the security of content on DNN?
Once an article is published, it will enjoy the immutability of the blockchain and can never be removed by external forces. We also mainly plan to support content that consists of less sensitive information. Our aim is to be a viable alternative to mainstream media, emphasizing factual integrity.
On DNN readers verify writers by citing other forms of reliable sources. How can you insure these sources are reliable?
One solution is to have readers, reviewers and writers bid tokens on sources they consider to be reputable. Each time the source is referenced in an article that gets accepted, they would receive a portion of the payout. Ultimately the total bids for each source would act as a gauge of how closely the source is vetted.
You refer to stories being "Validated by a delegated group of reviewers." This sounds like a centralized process. The delegated group of reviewers will not have any way of coordinating with each other to accept or reject articles since the review process
No reviewer is aware of other reviewers selected for the delegated article. In addition, determining composition of the group of reviewers delegated to an article will be handled by a bidding process involving a smart contract.
This is how it works, each reviewer is required to place a bid using DNN's tokens to review an article. Out of the pool of reviewers who have placed bids, the highest are selected and randomized to each article in the queue to reduce the possibility of colluding bids.
Reviewers provide written feedback and vote to reject or accept an article. The actions performed are unknown to the other reviewers and more than half of the reviewers must approve the article in order for it be added into the network. If the reviewers choose to reject the article, the writer has the option of submitting the article again after making any suggested changes, in which case, a new set of reviewers will be assigned.
The game theory aspect ensures each reviewer is discouraged to vote according to personal bias because it will lower the probability of their vote being correct. This imposes a financial penalty on reviewers for behaving this way.
The news industry has been “corporatised” through regulations that favour incumbents that use advertising revenue models that distort incentives. How does Ethereum resolve these flaws?
DNN removes the ad-centric model used by publishers, it isn't swayed by corporate or interests — since it's not a centralized entity. In lieu of the platform’s decentralized nature, a degree of involvement from a community of incentivized readers and reviewers is needed and this will create the kind of network that encourages quality, source-based, and accurate journalism.
Would another news network/website be able to use your checking and verifying system and still host their content on their platform?
Fact checking as a service (FCAAS), is one of many of the different use cases we envision for the DNN platform. We would hope that an article hosted elsewhere, that went through DNN's review process, could reference the published DNN version of the same article to increase the integrity of the article.
So an entity with a lot of ETH could send minimum bids from thousands of different addresses in order to essentially ensure they become the sole reviewer of articles? Countering against Sybil attacks is difficult, because the tradeoff often involves givin
To mitigate these types of attacks it really comes down to the cost an attacker would incur from creating these multiple accounts, and the amount of influence that each of these accounts has on the platform. One solution that we are currently looking into, is to implement some variation of Quadratic Voting.
Quadratic Voting would involve backing each bid with a certain amount of weight or cost. This would introduce the idea of having reviewers purchase votes, which is the weight applied to bids. The cost to purchase these votes that apply weight to a bid would be the square of the cost of the previous votes. This would make it costly for an attacker, since they would have to purchase these votes for every single account in order to then be able to place a bid of some varying amount of tokens.
We haven't worked out the complete details. This is very much a work in progress, but appears to be a promising solution. We have also been keeping an eye on Augur, since Sybil attacks would be an issue for them too. However, it seems they resolved it by making REP finite.
It will be sock puppeted and manipulated like all media currently is. Can money buy 'integrity' in DNN’s model?
“Sock-puppeting” is not likely to happen on DNN. Fact checkers and reviewers do not review articles in the same way you may be accustomed to see on other platforms. DNN's review process doesn't share any resemblance to something like a Wikipedia review in the sense that reviewers on DNN cannot communicate, nor make modifications freely. We have put many measures in place (in particular, methods from the study of game theory) to prevent reviewer biases and acts of collusion from compromising the review.
The delegated group of reviewers will not have any way of coordinating with one another to accept or reject articles, since the entire review process happens in isolation. Meaning, no reviewer will be made aware of the other reviewers selected for the delegated article. In addition, determining the group of reviewers delegated to an article will be handled by a bidding process that is facilitated by a smart contract.
Each reviewer is required to place a bid using DNN's tokens to review the article they are interested in. Out of the pool of reviewers who have placed bids for a given article, the reviewers who have placed the highest bids are selected to review the article. During the review period, reviewers are able to provide written feedback and vote to reject or accept the article into the network based on the DNN Content Guidelines. The actions performed by each reviewer are completely unknown to the others and more than 50 percent of them must approve the article in order for it be added into the network. If the reviewers choose to reject the article, the writer has the option of submitting the article again after making any suggested changes, in which case, a new set reviewers will be assigned.
With regard to up-voting articles, we do allow up-voting which acts as a tipping to writers. However, up-voting has no influence on the feed’s order. This is the job of the publisher nodes.
What sort of topic diversity will the publication have?
DNN will initially only publish news. We'd like to start with a niche first and see how well everything works. Since we're addressing the aspect of factual integrity, we figured that politics is the most reasonable place to start. Eventually, we'd love to expand into additional categories of news, such as entertainment and culture, if we find that this model works.
Ever had a bitcoin transaction you wish you could dispute / reverse? Ever been annoyed when a news organization deletes an article to serve a agenda? A news publishing service built on a blockchain would have undeletable articles. That by itself is huge.
Immutability, quality-driven incentive models, and trust-less collaboration is all made possible by blockchain. These blockchain attributes are what we hope will position DNN as a likely alternative to the centralized news we consume today from big publications.
If lobbyist or biased parties submit false articles for review and they cannot bid high enough to review and pass 50% on first attempt, what stops them from minor edits and resubmission until they find a batch of reviewers with low enough bids to take con
Fighting against syndicates and sybil attacks is a common question we have received from the community.
To prevent against syndicates, rather than displaying the details of the articles being bidded on, details such as the title, keywords, and snippets will remain hidden, until the submitted article has been delegated to a set of reviewers. By hidding the details of the article, the likelyhood of syndicates bidding to review the same article will drastically reduce.
Reviewers who have placed the highest bids are selected to review the article. What's to stop a party from placing large bids together to review and accept an article? And what's to stop that same party from submitting the article to be reviewed?
To prevent this from happening, the distribution of reviewers assigned will not be based on the amount of DNN tokens that they bid. Instead, users will be randomly assigned to articles in the submitted article queue. This will in turn mitigate the possiblity of coordinated bidding among users, in hope of being selected for the same article.
Already published and reliable sources... who decides which is reliable?
We want to work with with journalists to come up with a more comprehensive method of deciding what makes a source reliable. In more general terms the most reliable types of sources could consist of university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, books published by universities, magazines, peer-reviewed journals, mainstream newspapers, and respected blogs.
Readers don't care that news are decentralized or secured on the blockchain, but only that it is high quality and objective.
This is why we are not putting such a huge emphasis on the decentralization/security that blockchains provide in any our messages to the non-crypto audience. While the immutability of the blockchain is hugely important, it would be more beneficial to highlight payouts to writers, and the objectiveness of the published articles to readers, both of which (at least initially), will likely come from the non-crypto community.
Can reviewers preview content before bidding for an article?
Giving reviewers the ability to preview articles may open the door to potential collusion. Using these previews, reviewers can share them on public forums, with the intent on amassing enough reviewers to vote a certain way. Instead, reviewers will bid for the opporunity to be selected to review any article within the submitted article queue. Since reviewers will need to bid tokens to review articles, it should be the case that only reviewers who have a vested interest and have a degree of confidence in their ability to review, will likely be selected to review.
DNN should figure out an incentive model that rewards real news and punishes fake news rather than relying on a few trusted fact checkers.
We're trying to formulate the best plan possible to prevent fake news from even appearing on the platform in the first place. Of course, that's easier said than done and absolute perfection may be unattainable; but we would still require some fact-checking “layer” from the community in order to be able to distinguish between what's real and what's fake. Being that it would require the presence of people who fact-check according to our content guidelines, our logic is to introduce rewards and punishments within the review process rather than after the fact.
Does your service actually pay enough money to support writers?
Whether or not a writer can sustain a living off DNN, is dependent on two factors: the amount of articles they write that get accepted or rejected, and the amount of demand there is for the DNN token. A writer who has a higher accepted to rejected ratio, will increase the amount of tokens they earn per article. Furthermore, the more people that become involved with the DNN platform, the more there will be a demand for DNN tokens. Since each action on DNN requires the use of DNN tokens and their supply will be limited, there will always exist a demand for DNN tokens. When it comes to payouts, DNN Media (“the company”) does not retain any portion of payouts issued to contributors. All payouts are handled by smart contracts that only take into account contributions made by readers, writers, and reviewers. The amount of tokens each contributor receives is proportional to the amount of work they do.
Why would you create a new standalone token instead of sidechaining or using ETH?
With the influx of new tokens popping into existence in what seems like a daily event, we can see why DNN can come across as being no different. For the sake of getting a proof of concept working on Testnet, we chose to create a standalone token on top of Ethereum. However, building DNN as a sidechain is not off the table and something we would love to continue to converse more about with the community.
It is certainly possible to map DNN to a sidechain, however we're not sure if there is a need to introduce all of this additional functionality that comes with implementing a sidechain. We can certainly see the benefit of expressing the rewards for users of DNN in terms of Ether, but in your opinion is speculation the main reason you prefer sidechaining over building a ERC20 on Ethereum?
Can you pitch me how exactly does a blockchain improve news?
Blockchain enables a level of collaboration and incentive models that simply is unfeasible with other technology. Collaboration that is very much needed in our opinion, when it comes to formulating news. The notion that you can create a token that gets its value from the work performed by groups of people that have no need to trust one another is certainly beneficial.
About the issue of fact checkers, anybody can say they witnessed human rights violation, but that's only trusting his/her word. Even if video evidence is provided, it can be 'staged'.
Just to clarify, the role of the reviewer on DNN is to ensure that each claim or statement made in a submitted article is referenced to an already published and reliable source making those claims. Reviewers are not meant to actually ensure each statement is by definition true. The truthfulness of the articles published on DNN emerges from the integrity of the sources that each writer refers to in their article. With regard to witnessing events and understanding the full context, DNN will not be specializing in witness news and first hand journalism; rather, we wish to approach content in a way like an organization like Axios does, producing content that is derived from existing sources and presenting it in a matter-of-fact way, so the audience can come to their own conclusion about how they feel about something.
How will the token work?
The DNN token is the primary instrument of value that can be used to carry out actions on the platform. To enable the ability to price actions (such as reader tips to writers or reader subscriptions) on a micro scale, the DNN token will be divisible by up to 3 decimal places. DNN tokens can be obtained in the following way: Earn it by contributing to the network.
DNN tokens are used for a variety of things within the DNN network depending on the role the contributor chooses to take on.
For example, writers use DNN tokens to pay for the Writer Fee associated with submitting their article to the network. Once an article has been accepted, writers can earn DNN tokens through the engagement generated by their article.
Reviewers use DNN tokens to to be considered by the network as a reviewer of a submitted article.
Readers use DNN tokens to interact with articles in the form of viewing, commenting, and tipping writers.
Unlike writers, reviewers, and readers- publishers do not spend DNN tokens on the network because they don’t carry out actions. Instead, publishers must hold them to increase the amount
What is reputation?
Reputation is nothing more than a score which indicates how well the user is engaging with the platform, in terms of their rewards. The higher the reputation, the more DNN points get minted for that user. For example, a writer’s reputation is the ratio between articles accepted and articles rejected. The more articles a writer submits that get accepted, the higher the DNN points they earn per article and vice versa.
Similarly, a reviewer's reputation is the ratio between the amount of times their anonymous vote matched the vote of the majority of assigned reviewers. Therefore, the more times a reviewer votes with the majority, the more DNN points that reviewer earns, and vice versa.
What is the reward pool?
The reward pool is an accumulation of DNN tokens that get spent on the platform through various actions (e.g. readers commenting, liking, tipping writers, and voting on articles) carried out by all parties involved on DNN. During the withdrawl period, holders can exchange their DNN points for DNN tokens held in the reward pool, a network-determined DNN points to DNN token exchange rate.
Writers will be akin to freelance. The submission fee would need to be a rather low barrier to entry because these writers are basically broke a lot of times.
The writer fee will be determined by network activity which will be account for DNN points in circulation and accumlated DNN tokens in the reward pool. At the very least, the writer fee will be one one-thousandth of the potential reward in DNN tokens. The idea is to ensure that the value of writer fee remains affordable to writers, but big enough to prevent bogus contributions that overwhelm the review process.
Why does DNN use tokens instead of ETH?
One of the main reasons for not going with ETH is that we would need a way to stabilize its price to allow for writers to earn at a predictable rate; this is rather difficult to pull off using ETH alone. Not only that, but we have competing user types that would need the price to be at different places for the platform to appeal to them. On one hand, writers would like the price of the currency to stay high and earn more for the work they publish. While on the other hand, our reviewers would want the price to remain low to make it worth contributing. The way we solve this is by introducing a two token economy, consisting of DNN which can be purchased and the internal token called DNN points which is earned and used to swap for DNN tokens.
DNN Tokens are used for all actions carried out by users, such as commenting, liking, submitting, and bidding (i.e. any action where something is being persisted to the blockchain). DNN Tokens will have a fixed amount/not minted.
DNN points on the other hand are used solely for reward purposes, such as for reviewing an article, getting an article published, etc. These tokens will have an infinite supply, minted by the network at the conclusion of the review process based on the combined reputation of each reviewer and writer in the review group. Each user in the review will earn DNN points proportional to their reputation. These DNN points can later be exchanged on the platform for DNN tokens that get funneled into the platform through engagement.
These two tokens, together with the economic model we put together would address these concerns. The idea is to allow the system to determine the conversion between the two dynamically, to stabilize the price.
Why did you decide to start a project like this? What was your motivation?
Our primary motivation came during the recent U.S. presidential election. The more we looked at how the mainstream media behaves, as well as the outrage over 'fake news,' the more relevant we figured something like DNN could be. A lot of people make statements like 'the news is broken,' and in many ways, the process behind news creation is in need of repair.
Many big media companies are backed by corporate interests and tend to favor click-rates and profits over trustworthy content. When you combine that with the sheer scale and power of social media, the news has become distorted.
So, we figured a project like DNN could potentially serve as a template for different forms of news creation where the people own the platform and are incentivized to contribute to it by being rewarded tokens for their actions (i.e. writing an article, reviewing an article). This deviates from the traditional media model of ownership, reader subscriptions, and ad revenue.
What’s the difference between DNN and WikiTribune?
First, our respective review processes are different. At DNN, our community of reviewers fact-check articles using our content guidelines. DNN's incentive-based review process is designed to prevent collusion and to reward all parties involved in getting an article published. In WikiTribune's case, professional journalists are hired by WikiTribune to work with a community of volunteers to fact-check articles.
Secondly, we are an entity on the blockchain and immune from potential system takedowns, whereas WikiTribune is built more traditionally.
With DNN, a reviewer can earn tokens to fact check articles, readers can earn tokens by suggesting topics, and writers can earn tokens from accepted articles and reader interest (i.e. upvotes, comments, etc.). For WikiTribune, writers earn money through donations and reader subscriptions, while both volunteers and readers are not paid.
What does keeping editing/publishing "honest" mean?
What we hope to disrupt with DNN, is the kind of news that we see coming out of big publications, that have a great deal of bias, and are primarily concerned with appealing to the viewpoints of their readers. We're not pinning the entire blame on journalists. If anything, we want to provide them with a platform that allows them to report news without the burden of appeasing their publishers, while still making a living.
What we mean by "honest" is to ensure that reviewers vote on which articles should be published without their personal biases. Since the review process will be handled by the community, there is always the possibility that a reviewer will interject their personal opinions that could compromise the review. To prevent this from happening, DNN has penalties and incentives in place to ensure that reviewers follow the DNN Content Guidelines verbatim and behave in the best interest of the platform. Similarly, the platform is designed to reward writers who consistently submit articles that are deemed factual by reviewers assigned by the network.
How are you going to foster a reader base?
In terms of fostering a reader base, aside from the usual marketing efforts on various channels, we've been thinking a lot about the types of things we'd like to see as readers. One aspect we've found particularly interesting is a way to draw readers into the platform by incentivizing them. We want DNN to be able to allow readers to make suggestions about what writers can write about. In turn when readers make suggestions, they pay a small amount of tokens to do so. When a writer picks up a suggestion and produces content about it, he or she is rewarded by the tokens that the reader pays. Subsequently, the reader earns tokens that are generated upon the article being published and updating the smart contract. We ultimately hope that giving the readers additional influencing powers could spur long-term growth and draw more people to the platform.