I thought about taking TeXstr in that direction, using WoT as a decentralized peer-review mechanism and Atomic Signature Swaps to offer bounties to reputable people to review your work. I could for example lock 10k usd that only Ed Witten could claim in exchange for his signature to an event announcing the work has merit. He could filter what he reviews by value and stop reading as soon as he realizes it won't deserve his social signal, cutting his losses in time investment really quickly. He has an even greater incentive to stay honest, as his reputation and future earning (inside and outside of nostr) is worth much more than any single bounty.

Replies (1)

I believe we will eventually have the tools to use methods exactly as you describe over nostr, as well as other methods along similar lines. But a lot of infrastructure needs to be built first. For starters: I will want my Grapevine (my WoT) to tell me that npub_ew, which claims to be Ed Witten, is in fact the real Ed Witten and not some bot impersonator. Next, I will want my Grapevine to give me a list of npubs who are trusted in any given context, with the context in this case being “to review papers in theoretical physics” or something along those lines. But then the question arises: who curates the lists of contexts? Who decides that the category: ToE should a subcategory of physics? The answer needs to be: my Grapevine. Because I sure as hell don’t want the World Wide Web Consortium or any other centralized body to be in charge of defining contexts for me. This is why I am building Brainstorm, a personized WoT nostr relay and knowledge graph curated with the assistance of your Grapevine. Coming along slowly but surely! 😊