Feel free to comment on whether the overall idea is feasible or not.
How can the community go about creating a pooled fund where experienced and willing members can put the funds to work by earning in the Kleros’ ecosystem?
Some rough details:
Select volunteers to form an odd-numbered team, ( say call it Team A) whose main tasks are to provide evidence in favor of the side they’d want to win. Appeal when necessary. Part of the appeal proceeds will compensate the member that made it happen. In case of losses, the selected members don’t have to reimburse the lost fund. The group Telegram: Contact @legalpoh is doing it voluntarily already anyways, financial incentives might attract more people to do it on behalf of a disputed party.
Another set of members will join the ongoing Rewards program by Kleros (say Team B) i.e. Tag Registry,Token Rewards etc where part of the proceeds will be given to them.
Instead of encouraging the burning of $UBI to benevolently support the token value, why don’t we instead divert the cause to buying $PNK and have it staked in Humanity Court. Team A and Team B can collaborate together on which vote to cast. (UBI value will just continue to plunge anyway due to unsustainable model and non-existent other use cases aside from giving it away to mostly disinterested members)
Aside from drawing chances and earning arbitration fees, it earns every month for staking.
The team can expand its stake to other Courts when necessary.
These might promote a cartel within Humanity court, but it should still be a fun experiment to conduct.
These are great ideas that address oboarding, developing a web of trust, and funelling active users into the wider Kleros ecosystem. There are some financial barriers that stop people (myself included) getting involved with Kleros Curate or other products, to which I suggested a grant pool to onboard interested participants to start earning and demonstrate the functioning of the ecosystem. Green is helping onboard me privately, but your suggestion here would help build towards that onboarding procedure whilst enhancing both PoH and Kleros utility.
Your $PNK idea helps facilitate those ideas and shifts registrations from people wanting to get free money to people wanting to build Web 3 and build professional connections. I feel that shift in vision could do a lot long term.
Although I appreciate the goal of UBI, and it is partly what got me interested in PoH besides DIDs, I agree that overall development to do anything that enhance the value of UBI is non existent, with the exception of YubiAi and Vitalik being altruistic. Even on the UBI DAO forum I am the only person to contribute any formal ideas to that end to date.
Open PoH can still develop their UBI goals, Origin can develop the Kleros ecosystem and profile utility.
It will also allow Kleros and DEF to completely go their seperate ways in totality, since they never had a unified vision from the start which is clear from the recent research publication.
I’m proposing the initiative for the PoH Origin fork since Kleros will remain its arbitrator for disputes. And thinking of requesting a small part of the treasury to be allocated to it upon split.
I wonder if it interests others too. From what I observed, some community members do want to get more involved, especially in juroring but the cost individually is high.
It might additionally strengthen the synergistic relationship between Kleros and Proof of Humanity and at the same time seem to be plausible ways to address diminishing engagement and newcomers’ reprobation of the latest challenge reasons (even long-time members are in equal disagreement).
PoH leverages Kleros’ infrastructure, funding, and workforce while Kleros leverages PoH in user reach and supposedly easier onboarding to Kleros’ ecosystem
PoH benefits from the curation model and dispute settlement that’s been tested and working for other launched Kleros’ dapps before PoH. Kleros’ jurors in turn benefit from arbitration fees.
Whenever a user gets introduced to PoH, there’s a high chance of him/her checking out Kleros and vice versa. Both platforms bring about new users to the other despite different use case focus. Its communities often are members of each other
PoH thrives when Kleros thrives, and vice versa.
Given that a person needs only to verify once for a 2-year valid profile, far less than the total registered humans stay to vote in governance or collaborate. Probably because there’s no next interesting step presented to them to do.
Improving the onboarding process and acknowledging that it’s a multistep one can increase retention. Successful registration is just step 1.
PoH has broader member profiles and crypto competency levels compared to strictly Kleros community members. The approach to community building will always be different.
Part of the community members coming to PoH includes those who are primarily engaged members of another crypto project (ie. Lens, Gitcoin, Sismo etc). If we can get these members’ attention to be active in a second project like PoH, laying options for a more challenging step than getting registered can be a way.
Users’ strong disapproval of challenge reasons
From daily observations in the chats that I admin and support, PoH is bombarded with complaints from onboarders in light of recent disputes - mirror image, coloured lipstick, partly covered chin. I believe it has reached the level where it has to be addressed and acted upon by the entire community.
To sum up the feedback, profile submission to the registry is becoming predatory.
The word-for-word interpretation of the policy hurt both PoH and Keros reputations. The level of scrutiny in other Courts, like Technical, doesn’t always apply to Humanity Court and it’s where edge cases are more common.
Possibly having an option for a pooled juror fund for PoH where juroring risk is shared collectively can help add a distinct perspective and influence outcomes to the seemingly homogenous perspective of the current Humanity Court juror pool (I perceive as Veterans in Kleros disputes).
Before PoH aims to be usable and secure, it needs registrants first.
Predatory interpretations of the policy however veer registrants away.
I completely agree with ning here that PoH is bombarded with complaints from onboarders in light of recent disputes - mirror image, coloured lipstick, partly covered chin . And it certainly needs to be stopped immediately as it has reached the level where it has to be addressed and acted upon by the entire community. We can’t just deny the entry of these people due to minor issues as ning mentioned above. The more these people are challenged for the reasons like mirror images, the more it will keep registrants & people who wants to join POH away.