Nostr Web Client

It some circumstances, the arbiter may need an incentive to participate due to the work involved in review, so they could be assigned a split. The ecash could be locked to the threshold in the same way that cashu ecash can be locked to a nostr pubkey.

I agree with not introducing complexity until there is a solution that validates product market fit. nostr:nprofile1qqsdqnk0xw3s8fvc2t7mdq0d3dqjyqd6shvdyxv6a3eukcngr4324yqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7cnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0c6dswr with satshoot is taking that approach by just focusing on coordination and not payment yet.

vinney...axkl 11mo ago

Current design just has Arbiter getting a few on the total amount paid, but I agree that is likely too naive for the use-case we're describing here.

...then again, if the Arbiter's split is too attractive, he could greenlight garbage just to get paid. Though I would expect public eyeballs to ding his reputation in that case.

Might be the case that a market like this can't really work for high value until Nostr has proper reputation primitives beyond manual pubic comment.

👀 nostr:nprofile1qqsw2feday2t6vqh2hzrnwywd9v6g0yayejgx8cf83g7n3ue594pqtcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3kamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwvf5hgcm0d9h8qctjdvhxxmmdqyt8wumn8ghj7erpwe5kgtnwdaehgu339e3k7mgxeu5tj nostr:nprofile1qqs0dqlgwq6l0t20gnstnr8mm9fhu9j9t2fv6wxwl3xtx8dh24l4auspz4mhxue69uhkzat5dqhxummnw3erztnrdaksz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgxmpqkh

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

DanConwayDev 11mo ago

The threat of reputational damage maybe enough. Also the arbiter might have other incentives. For example, the patron might want a feature in a library and the arbiter might be the library maintainer.

vinney...axkl 11mo ago

All good points, yes.

In general I want the protocol to have as few opinions as possible and just provide the tools that the market can use to find the best solutions to these challenges.

No way I'm going to have all the answers up front!

DanConwayDev 11mo ago

Yes. Simplicity, extensibility, flexibility.

david 11mo ago

Is there any feedback or “rating” mechanism for arbiters? If so, GrapeRank will be able to it to good use and make sure that spammy feedback gets ignored. Format of the feedback can be anything: reactions, numeric rating, context or no context, etc, which means you can optimize for UX. Even just the fact that an arbiter was hired for a job and got paid can be used as input, if that data is available.

vinney...axkl 11mo ago

The Arbiter and Patron proposal and acceptance events, and all the payments are all tracked via Nostr events so yes definitely available data.

And a project being successfully completed or rejected it also tracked via events - which would be good for reputation of the Free Agents who perform work.

Could definitely look into adding more feedback and rating mechanisms, I'd love for this to be synergistic with GrapeRank

david 11mo ago

Do you have in mind a mechanism to flag dishonest / scammers / bad actors? NIP-56 reports or NIP-32 labels would be a possible place to start.

I suppose it would be simple enough to calculate the number of successfully completed projects score, something similar to what eBay does, but do a GrapeRank-weighted sum rather than a simple sum to screen out fake projects.

This reminds me that I’ve been wanting to export WoT scores using nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z ‘s NIP which you could use to import GrapeRank scores for the above calculation.

vinney...axkl 11mo ago

You could definitely query for all the rejected projects where the Arbiter returned the funds to the Patron because the work was crap or fake. But that tells you the bad Free Agents.

There sort of wouldn't be "fake projects". A Patron has to pay the project amount in escrow to the Arbiter before a Free Agent worker can be assigned , so once that happens there is skin in the game.

I suppose you could check for Patrons who initiate tons of spam projects and never finalize the escrow... But I don't see that happening a ton.

The real thing you'd want to be vigilant for is Arbiters who abscond with the escrow! You'd query that by looking for work submissions that don't ever have a correspondening payment NOR refund.

TL;DR: I'd like if the whole reputation picture can just be gleaned from the event trail without requiring reports or anything like that. Maybe an Arbiter somewhere sets up a DVM that does these queries routinely in order to prove to the market that they are among the most trustworthy. He could charge for that DVM - almost like a licensing board, but nobody has to pay attention to it if they don't care.