Editor's Note: This article comes fromBlue Fox Notes (ID: lanhubiji), reprinted by Odaily with authorization.

Editor's Note: This article comes from

Blue Fox Notes (ID: lanhubiji)

, reprinted by Odaily with authorization.

Voice has already started testing in the United States, and users in the United States have successively released screenshots. Judging from the screenshots, the interface of the information flow is similar to Twitter or Weibo, and there are also posts, likes and comments. However, the interface is only the appearance, the core lies in the operating mechanism. Voice CEO Salah Zalatimo has always emphasized that real people post real information and have real discussions. The core ideal of Voice is to build a real online social network, away from fake accounts, fake news and fake privacy, where people respect each other and are harmonious but different. This is Voice's vision, and it's beautiful.

So, are the measures corresponding to its vision in line? Can it be realized? Everything is unknown. However, we can take a look at the two core differences of the current Voice to get a glimpse of the leopard.

secondary title

KYC for live accounts

At present, most social networks do not adopt the KYC authentication mechanism of real accounts. Users generally can register an account by mobile phone or email. This results in users having multiple accounts, fake accounts, or bot accounts. Fake accounts are used for various purposes, such as trumpets or trolls. Although some social networks adopt a hierarchical account mechanism, including V-authenticated accounts and non-authenticated accounts, etc., they have not adopted a mechanism that requires all accounts to undergo real-person KYC authentication.

In order to solve problems such as fake accounts, Voice adopts real account KYC authentication. Currently, Voice uses a method of cooperating with a trusted third party to verify identity. Users prove their identity information, including driver's license, passport, ID card, etc., and need to take a selfie with their avatar. In order to protect privacy, Voice mentioned that within a period of time after the verification is completed, these materials may be automatically deleted and not retained.

KYC verification of live accounts is a double-edged sword. Today's social networks are full of fake accounts, fake news, etc. However, even if it is a real account KYC, it can only alleviate this situation and cannot cure it. If the KYC account can bring enough benefits, for example, you can get a good profit by collecting wool, someone will definitely find a way to complete the KYC account verification by purchasing identity information, and someone may even directly acquire the user's account, as long as the benefit is higher than the cost , under the rules, there may be users who do this.

If the threshold for KYC accounts is further increased, for example, when users want to withdraw Voice tokens, users must conduct live video verification. Although there is still an opportunity to take advantage of it, it will significantly increase the user's operating costs. However, this will cause another problem. If you need to compare the live video to extract Voice tokens, then the verification data mentioned above will be automatically deleted after a period of time, which cannot be realized.

Taking a step back, assuming that all users are real KYC accounts, will this solve the problem of false news? The person who posts false news will also post false news. Moreover, publishing false news is sometimes intentional, and sometimes it is an unintentional mistake. How does disinformation itself measure up? Is there a penalty mechanism for users who post false news? If not, the cost for users to post fake news is low. False news will not be completely solved with KYC account verification. And if the data verified by users in the future will be automatically deleted, how will the account be associated with the identity of the real person? Are users who post false news more confident?

Real-person KYC accounts only solve the problem of real-person accounts to a certain extent, but they still do not solve problems such as false news.

In addition, once KYC is adopted, it essentially adopts the traditional system model, which is very different from the core spirit of the blockchain without permission and trust. Of course, there is no good or bad judgment here, it is just a choice of path.

secondary title

Voice's content incentive mechanism

Voice's incentives may be the most eye-catching yet. The specific details are still unclear. Judging from the information revealed so far, this is a game mechanism. Whether this game mechanism is conducive to solving the problem of false news, whether it is conducive to presenting good content, it is still difficult to judge.

Users can "Voice" the content, but this operation needs to spend Voice tokens, and the Vocie tokens will be locked. If it is the first Voice to the content, then within 24 hours, if someone “Voices” again, the first user can get back his tokens, and at the same time, he can also get a 10% reward. For example, if you give a content "Voice" 10 tokens, and another person "Voice" it again within 24 hours, then you can get back your 10 tokens and get a reward of 1 token at the same time , get back a total of 11 tokens.

The second user who voices the content needs to use more Voice tokens (more than 10 tokens), and then the user also expects that other users will voice within 24 hours, so that the second user can get it back Proceeds from its tokens and rewards. The last user (that is, no one else voiced within 24 hours) will lose all tokens.

For a content, the more Voice tokens you get, the higher the probability it will be seen.

What's wrong with this game mechanism?

Under normal circumstances, when we see a piece of content, if we really think it is good, we will like it or give a reward. This is a very common phenomenon in WeChat official accounts. At this time, there is no game mechanism to affect people's choices, and the choices at this time are more based on people's recognition of the content.

As people continue to increase prices, the further they go, the greater the benefits, but the greater the risk, because it is very likely to be the last person to voice content. This process of increasing prices is full of excitement, danger, and uncertainty, and no one knows whether he will be the best one.

epilogue

In addition, some content may be of average quality, but it needs to be known by more people. Is it possible to achieve the effect of being on the "hot search" by promoting other people to voice it? If so, Voice becomes a game for the rich (people with more Vocie tokens), and whoever has more Voice tokens will have a louder voice.

So, is this game mechanism in line with the original vision? Is it helpful to solve the problem of disinformation? Is it conducive to the formation of a community of real information exchange? So far, no clear answer has been obtained. This mechanism may stimulate people to regard content as an investment target and play games based on "content".

secondary title

epilogue

Block.one CEO Brendan Blumer tweeted that The Last Voice may have commentary/advertising slots. Similar to advertisements on advertising platforms, users bid for the ad space, so there will be free market pricing. If so, the user who pays the highest Vocie is not only playing with other users, but also competing for this advertising space. This brings up a new game.