How would you gauge someone’s reputation on TruStory?


Disclaimer: This isn’t my question or answer. This is @danielkuh’s. Gotta give credit where credit’s due.

"I would gauge someone’s reputation on TruStory by seeing this person’s impact. The more times I see a person and receive value from their story or argument, the higher thir reputation is, in my opinion.

Other things I would use to guage it

  • The number of creds and ranking they have within specific categories.
  • How consistently are they accurate with regards to their claims & arguments.
  • Do I find value in their stories — This is subjective but still an important criterion for me to determine if I think this person is reputable."


3 ways I’d gauge reputation

  1. Amount of Cred they have. Cred factors in a bunch of things like the accuracy of their posts (claims, backings, challenges), so it’s a convenient way to compare reputations of people.
  2. Proximity to people I trust. If there’s someone with relatively low amount of Cred, it doesn’t mean they automatically have a low reputation to me. If someone who I trusted found this person helpful, they’d go up a notch in my book. I.e. if @bhaumik or @paulapivat found someone helpful, I know they’d be helpful for me too.
  3. Subjectivity. Just reading their claims and analyses. It’s slow and time-consuming but I think this is actually the best way to evaluate someone, in my opinion. Some things just can’t be accounted by numbers.


Some scattered thoughts on the type of activities I value from TruStory members, including how we could incorporate on user profiles (which I’m assuming spurred this question):

  • Cred - this seems like a good aggregate number of passive activity, but I’d want to see a granular breakdown of the type of activities that led to cred. Was it mostly from backing claims? Or challenging? Or creating new claims?
  • Specialist - I’d want to see which categores someone is most active in. I value Zareef’s reputation in Token Economics given his strong activity there but wouldn’t necessarily consider him to be a strong source on Regulation-related claims unless I saw him analyzing evidence there.
  • Depth of evidence - from my understanding, there is no Cred gained from adding evidence so we need to showcase strong examples of this within the app. Maybe we add the ability for users to upvote to evidence they found helpful (or more aggressively “Did you learn something new?”)? We can then showcase the most upvoted analysises on the user profiles? Reading evidence is where I gain the most knowledge from and lend credibility to people. At this stage, I care less about how many claims they accurately backed or challenged.
  • Reach & further debate - Was the content interesting to people outside of the community? Was it shared on Twitter/Facebook? How many impressions? Did the post encourage further discussion and encourage new evidence? Did new users sign up as a direct result of reading the post?
  • Referrals - On a similar vein, if a user recruits 5 friends to join the network who immediately start contributing, I’d want to recognize that behavior as it’s adding value for all of us. Maybe we could display either the number of users referred or the aggregate amount of Cred the referred users have earned?


I think once TruStory is fully into the App version and game on then the amount of Cred they posses is the only factor required to gauge someone’s reputation on TruStory. But during the discourse times the overall value of content created on TruStory (quantity & quality) , number of TruStory tweeted content (popularity), expertise they bring to a specific category (knowledge level), number of fellow TruStorians they have brought in (referrals) can be used. I think any entity can only begin as centralized and eventually decentralize by the robustness of token economics in play.


Thanks for your feedback.

I definitely think it’s important to take into consideration @bhaumik’s first point in response.

What if person A has 1000 Cred but only gains Cred by backing claims that a majority of people back. Person B has 500 Cred but gains this from creating their own claims, backing other claims and refuting other people’s claim.

Person A is technically consistently more correct than person B but I’d argue person B to have a better reputation overall. Person A gives no value to the community while person B is trying.

Would you still deem Person A more reputable than Person B?


I’d echo all the sentiments above.

I think there are many ways to gauge someone’s reputation on TruStory. As I understand, Cred is an attempt to incentivize truth via staking in support/or challenge of a story. It represents a quantitative measurement and is one piece of the picture. Other quantitative measurements are the Leaderboard engagement metric. The good thing is, Cred can’t be bought so we can avoid conflating reputation with wealth.

At the moment we have Cred for supporting/challenging the content of the claim. In addition, I’d also consider quality of analysis and importance of topic to wider crypto community beyond TruStory would also be important to capture.

I’d also like to consider qualitative measures that maybe more difficult to get at. How much the person is helping community members, sharing knowledge, answering questions, getting community members involved - - a lot of which is more challenging to quantify, but definitely work towards reputation building.


You currently don’t Earn Cred for purely creating a claim. You earn my backing / challenging / voting. It’s too easy to game earning Cred by creating a bunch of stories.


I very much disagree @danielkuh. You create more value by participating in the debate than by purely creating claims. Anyone can create claims by going to some news site and pulling claims. It takes 5 seconds. Analyzing claims is how you create the most value for end users.


Some ideas:

  • I like Bhaumik’s idea of rewarding people who post claims or responses with a depth of evidence. As he mentioned, you could have something like a “found this helpful” button that other users could click. The amount of “helpful” votes a user receives can figure into their reputation (not Cred).

  • I’m uneasy about the idea of incorporating any form of popularity metric (Facebook, Twitter, etc., engagement/impressions) in the reputation score. One of the many maladaptive incentives of social media is the conflation of popularity with truth. Having even the slightest inbuilt reward (via reputation score) for creating ‘popular’ claims or responses could gradually skew this project in a direction at odds with the original goals. That being said, creating claims that get attention on other platforms is fun in and of itself – that is its own reward. But popularity doesn’t need to be incentivized via Cred or reputation.


I agree w/ not rewarding creation of claims. But my interpretation of active participation in the debate includes evidence-gathering. As Daniel mentions, I could easily spend a 2-3 minutes every day just backing claims that a majority of people have backed, without even reading the debate.

We could limit that behavior by requiring the user to scroll through some of the evidence (and even mark what they found helpful in picking a side) and/or incentive more meaningful engagement (ie. backing or challenging newer claims, adding new evidence to claims)


as nice as that sounds, that gets complex and subjective and easy to game very quickly. A user shouldn’t need a manual to understand how incentives work in TruStory. The core of TruStory is that you are putting skin in the game for everything you do (back, challenge, vote). Votes are weighted by your reputation, which can only be earned through backing, challenging and voting. The more skin in the game, the more value you’re adding to the network, hence the more reputation you earn.


That’s cool. I would imagine likes are dangerous. You’d want to use them as weight, but I find heavily liked messages/pictures to be shareable or loud, not necessarily honest.


Well said, everyone! I will add that I’ll also gauge someone’s reputation if they are

  1. Open to constructive feedback/counter arguments
  2. And, if they are willing to collaborate.

If someone’s reputation is to be annoyingly stubborn and not open to see a new perspective, then BYE :wave: