---
title: C- Making editors identifiable incentivizes high quality reviews
enableToc: false
tags:
- claim
---
Authored By:: [[P- Brendan Langen]]

In [[R- Science as Pull Requests]], [[P- Cortex Futura]] paints a picture of an open source, engineering-focused academic review process of the future. 

Part of our challenge is solving, [[Q- How can people maintain a decentralized discourse graph with a high quantity of information in it]]? 

By allowing [[C- Anonymous contributions to a decentralized discourse graph enable balanced review]], we enable for reviews to be unbiased. However, because we want our information to be valid, we also need to answer, [[Q- How can we incentivize generative contributions to a decentralized discourse graph]]? [[C- Curation is an important role in maintaining a decentralized discourse graph]], and staking rewards for editing is a step to ensuring high quality. 

(Rough idea here) [[I- Incentivize high quality review through token distribution]].

Imagine if editors received a token for their peer-reviewed contributions. [[Q- What would a Web3 Wikipedia look like]]. In a way, we are applying the same principles as Audius. [[C- The incentives of Audius explicitly value curation]]

[[Q- How do we increase the frequency of social review]]?