From there, we come to the other three key components in leveraging the wisdom of the crowd:
- and knowledge
Finally, we’ll have a gander at how the Finnoq protocol takes all of these factors into consideration, creating the first market solution for decentralized opinion markets.
Building off of Surowiecki: Incentivization, Decentralization, and Knowledge
Concerning the same experiment at ETH Zurich mentioned in part one, incentivization and its impact on truthful answers was also highlighted. A control group responded to questions, and were informed after of the experimental group’s responses to the same questions. The researchers found that the more actors knew about the answers of others, influence and bias morphed answers, and collective results became unreliable. Additionally, participating students were told they’d receive a monetary incentive for responding correctly at the outset. Thus, the researchers found that monetization within a study for “correct” responses upped the ante, where better and more truthful responses could be elicited. The researchers urged future experiments to include an incentive for participants.
Another factor to consider is decentralization. As is the case with wikis and the entire organization Wikipedia, anyone can publish on the website. Contributors are encouraged to write from a neutral point of view. From there, rights and control over quality content is administered equally and not by a centralized actor with self-interested motivations. When many people are involved in the process (publishing, editing, and approving), the “masses produce for the masses”. This in turn creates high quality, neutral content that is “fit for purpose”. Additionally, projects attempting to do the same on the blockchain, are taking hold. In total, having a decentralized network creates an equal platform for all to contribute.
Lastly, some form of topic-based knowledge of the crowd also improves outcomes. One study (even while negating the wisdom of the crowd concept) went as far as to say that knowledge, rather than diversity or independence, is the best predictor of collective accuracy. Whereas the popular notion that somehow only relying on a panel of experts yields the most robust information, even approaches such as the Delphi method rely on varying knowledge sets (all under the guise of “expert”). For example, Galton’s results were categorized in a chart, showing and proving that various knowledge sets (and pursuant results) create the simple average more reliable than that of an individual response alone. The chart is below:
Thus by summarized and merged with our earlier discussion in part one, receiving the wisdom of to crowd requires the following factors:
The Finnoq Protocol's Intrinsic Wisdom of the Crowd
After all of that (and yes, it is a lot), imagine this: the Finnoq protocol’s model considers all of these notions (for and against the concept), and integrates them into a product that helps make better decisions. Whereas some are quick to write off the wisdom of the crowd or blindly accept it, we’re working tirelessly to turn it into a positive force for all. How?
Let’s address part one of the blog. First, the Finnoq protocol aggregates responses from a community, taking into account each individual response. Second, it possesses diversity of perspective by having a community from around the globe, with varying viewpoints and ideas. Third and very importantly, the Finnoq protocol ensures independence of its respondents; at the outset, secret voting processes, whereby voters neither know each other nor know how others vote, thwart influencing and bias among participants. As the community grows, randomization techniques and background algorithms will be employed to restrict a large group of participants voting together to game the system.
Fourth, the Finnoq protocol incentivizes candid responses through truth-telling incentives to be discussed in our next blog (stay tuned). Fifth, this community will be completely decentralized in the future, as the Finnoq protocol sits on the blockchain and will transition into complete decentralization of participants. Finally, knowledge is not only rewarded, but track and scored within one’s credibility. Thus when a participant isn’t knowledgeable, rewards never show up, earning higher rewards in future votes is diminished, and credibility of the participant dwindles; tangentially, eligibility to vote could also be impacted.
In all of these ways, the Finnoq protocol embodies the spirit of tapping into the wisdom of the crowd. We are excited to bring in an expanding community of opinion givers and seekers, developers, and researchers dedicated to providing a true #ReturnOnSociety.