karl

Thanks Very Interesting here are some links:

https://everipedia.org/
https://big.one/trade/IQ-EOS
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/everipedia.org

2c4d0f11958ce1d834f4d3fac5eae76c

MX10178

Automatic Claim Number - cla1557234253

Quote - S a m K a z e m i a n , K e d a r I y e r , T r a v i s M o o r e , T h e o d o r F o r s e l i u s , L a r r y S a n g e r s a m @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m k e d a r @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m t r a v i s @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m t h e o d o r @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m l a r r y @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m

Claim

Although the whitepaper gives contact emails, it doesn't list or indicate any physical address or headquarters location.

The Everipedia website lists headquarters in Santa Monica, Stockholm, and the Cayman Islands, but only gives a physical address in the Cayman Islands.

In and of itself, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. However, since the website has an 'Investors' section, and contains a downloadable investor presentation, it is concerning that they do not list a physical address in the US or Sweden, where the team is presumably physically based.

This seems to indicate a deliberate lack of transparency for an unknown reason.

Flags:

From Everipedia: We are incorporated in the Cayman Islands. by seedwhitepaperowner1 on 2019-05-08 06:29:15

cec833253c2ad187a8c489fe8ab9bebd

terrylamp

Alright, a new whitepaper! Appreciate the links Karl. I think we can get through this by helping each other out and hitting different aspects of this whitepaper. I made a list below of how we can do so.

Press research, see if they claim something different in the press.

Who is part of the team/company

Site registration, active or not as well as their status with the Secretary of State

Lawsuits, if there are any or not

Copyright and patents

Technology

Business methodology

This makes it easier for us to check this whitepaper compared to everyone doing their own thing. Also gives newbies like myself and others the opportunity to see and learn how the experienced bounty hunters go about their work.

6880095fbdc444cb900b4feba6922daf

cubanoBHlounge

I found something https://theoutline.com/post/2369/everipedia-is-the-wikipedia-for-being-wrong. It is not claim worthy but we cam probably find a pattern of behavior to file a claim.

9f9d65a3b86d2b869208c150ff1f3f6d

seedwhitepaperowner3

Hi I am the mod for tonight. Please don't DM or email us with question. Just post it here for efficiency reasons.

9d3b3b878714f9fdeef84dc740e4b4f0

hughhouse

I tried to look up the owner of the site and nothing has come up in my search so far any idea? Also, there is no registration of Everipedia with the Secretary of State, something to look into https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?filing=False&SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=Everipedia&SearchSubType=Keyword.
They should be registered since they state that their headquarters is here in Westwood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everipedia.

It is strange because they have a big internet presence. Please, I would love credit for this with reputation so I can work my way to being a bounty hunter.

7a3ce4c28cf86fd1a8bc2d3963b0dbf0

Nody

Automatic Claim Number - cla1557206449

Quote - However,Wikipediaunintentionallytrapstheknowledgecapitalitgenerateswithinitsownplatformwhenitscontentcouldbeusedtocreateathrivingknowledgeeconomy.

Claim

It is interesting that Everipedia says that Wikipedia is unwilling to make a knowledge base when Everipedia wouldn't even be where it is now without importing entries from Wikipedia. As you can see they admit in this paragraph on their own site https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/everipedia/ ,

Part of Everipedia's alternative was to import all of Wikipedia's content on their platform. This laid a foundation for people to add content to these pages that would not necessarily be accepted on Wikipedia's platform, such as links to their websites and social media accounts. In addition, Everipedia's users could create additional pages for people, organizations, and other subjects that are not found on Wikipedia.

Everipedia copied information from Wikipedia. Wikipedia hasn't been referenced as their source.
Think about all of the contributors who submitted their work to Wikipedia, a free platform, for others to reference and use their work for educational purposes. This company, not a free platform, took their work and copied it to their platform with only mentioning that they imported content from Wikipedia.
e2a78c7a0ae04e078a805a2c6f37cb1b

HopeHK

Everipedia is a great concept, but it brings one major question to mind:

Wikipedia seems to work because the people who submit and edit articles are sort of idealists. They do it because they believe in it, they enjoy it, and feel a part preserving and distributing the world's knowledge.

Everipedia's submitters and editors, on the other hand, will be incentivized by tokens that have value. Will this corrupt the quality of the information? Will the spirit of the community be positive and collaborative, or will it invite schemes and unhealthy competitive practices between users?

No one knows, but you have to commend Everipedia for a wonderfully inventive concept.

d6b6877ffe725848ae3958edec818b8b

Rosi

@HopeHK I hear ya but read the whitepaper and look at the website because they thought of all of this. What it comes down to is you can work on wikipedia for free or you can get paid sort of for doing the same thing on everipedia.

a16f83950c932876effd5f7288d36c14

JDav19

@MX10178 the fact that they don't show an address (besides Cayman Islands) on the website is not that unusual. Lots of companies do that because otherwise people drop by constantly with different proposals etc. The Whois on the Everipedia website registration lists an address in Los Angeles. If they were hiding something they could have kept that address confidential too.

702f0bb9a63d8d48cafe58e5b847cfab

maxamusdecamus

Automatic Claim Number - cla1557330988

Quote - 1‑2millionuniquevisitorseachmonth

Claim

ony 30% of traffic coming from search engines, i.e. organically. Suggests the numbers have been inflated by purchasing page views.
Supported by the % of web traffic coming from India.
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/everipedia.org?ver=alpha6a83e4d774361e776e604737a4ac2ed3

maxamusdecamus

Automatic Claim Number - cla1557331685

Quote - Thetransferfeemodelweproposewillallowthenetworktobenefitfrommarketspeculation.

Claim

All Tokens benefit from market speculation. This is not unique to their model. When the utility of the network is low, such as in the initial period when the network is small, the incentive for users of the token is only its speculative value. As the network grows so does the utility of that token on the network rather than the speculative value and so the network grows exponentially. 9fe4534d30b240cc57d7c5a640848ae9

maxamusdecamus

Automatic Claim Number - cla1557332042

Quote - Thetransferfeemodelweproposewillallowthenetworktobenefitfrommarketspeculation.Sinceonlynon‑governance,non‑stakingtransfersincurafee,thespeculatorsare,inaway,fundingthedevelopmentoftheEveripediaNetwork.Thetransferfeecanbeburnedtocreateadeflationarysupply,usedtofundnetworkdevelopment,orusedtofurthereconomicactivityontheplatform

Claim

tokens held on the majority of the large trading platforms DO NOT physically move to different wallets on the underlying blockchain with each trade. Tokens are held in cold storage by the trading platform and are only transferred once a user is looking to take those tokens off the platform. This is done to increase trading speeds and decrease the risk of attacks. 1d3c973ed3abfda7cfd7c7a4af6d0c48

maxamusdecamus

Automatic Claim Number - cla1557332534

Quote - commonresponse‑thecorrectone.

Claim

Common response does not = correct response. An expert in a field may have a minority response, however, the correct response. 97fafb91854bc6ad4a63f107a2852342

maxamusdecamus

Automatic Claim Number - cla1557334339

Quote - TokenModule

Claim

There is no full economic model provided for the system and therefore no way to verify if the system will work efficiently. 66c229312a6b8cb67b5a06de49d974ae

HopeHK

I believe that the curating of articles on Wikipedia may be more neutral because the math behind Everipedia allows the suppression of opinions that aren't mainstream. And those opinions need to be protected when people are resisting changes.

6fad7fe0d4226dce89dec1ef13e185e6

RayenPLK

@HopeHK this is pretty significant because for example, the vast majority of people would classify the tomato as a vegetable, but it is a fruit. The majority opinion is not necessarily correct.

07fe38502d800ce78b63407e9d31de6d

THE JUDGE!!!!!!

Opinion #61: An opinion has been issued in Automatic Claim Number - cla1557206449.

It was decided to release 9% of the funds. The jury voted in their opinion to release an average of 13% of the bounty and a median of 9% of the bounty.

Please see below for the opinion of the jury:

• Opinion #1 - I support the claim 100%. I reduced the bounty amount only because they discuss platform technology and we are here not able to decide about copyright infringement. Hence 30%
• Opinion #2 - i think trapping knowledge is a poor phrase for how the platform will operate as compared with wikipedia. the white paper owner should rephrase to be clearer
• Opinion #3 - This is interesting information but there is no claim against the quote. This is better served as a comment for discussion.

Claim: It is interesting that Everipedia says that Wikipedia is unwilling to make a knowledge base when Everipedia wouldn’t even be where it is now without importing entries from Wikipedia. As you can see they admit in this paragraph on their own site https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/everipedia/ , Part of Everipedia's alternative was to import all of Wikipedia's content on their platform. This laid a foundation for people to add content to these pages that would not necessarily be accepted on Wikipedia's platform, such as links to their websites and social media accounts. In addition, Everipedia's users could create additional pages for people, organizations, and other subjects that are not found on Wikipedia. Everipedia copied information from Wikipedia. Wikipedia hasn’t been referenced as their source. Think about all of the contributors who submitted their work to Wikipedia, a free platform, for others to reference and use their work for educational purposes. This company, not a free platform, took their work and copied it to their platform with only mentioning that they imported content from Wikipedia.

Highlight: However,Wikipediaunintentionallytrapstheknowledgecapitalitgenerateswithinitsownplatformwhenitscontentcouldbeusedtocreateathrivingknowledgeeconomy.

b214f54a9455119c1bfeaf1688c855e9

HopeHK

@RayenPLK Exactly, so then what happens if 90% of the consensus says that a tomato is (obviously) a vegetable? How can someone who knows the correct facts override that?

4a2d351835787ecd83209ff577783059

THE JUDGE!!!!!!

Opinion #62: An opinion has been issued in Automatic Claim Number - cla1557330988.

It was decided to release 5% of the funds. The jury voted in their opinion to release an average of 15% of the bounty and a median of 5% of the bounty.

Please see below for the opinion of the jury:

• Opinion #1 - The claim is true. The traffic reported to be generated from the search engine is inflated. The total visit generated on the website is 1.94M and the bounce rate is 79%. It is likely that the traffic was purchased from multiple sources and locations.
• Opinion #2 - the stat is given as a total stat, not specifying organic vs paid. while organic traffic is generally better, its not necessary negative that some traffic is paid.
• Opinion #3 - According to the link provided there is a discrepancy however, your claim that they purchased views is unsupported. Maybe they do have users in India, just because the link shows users in India, it does not mean that they are "fake" or purchased viewers. I will award bounty but it could have been more if the claim had more evidence to support the purchased viewers claim.

Claim: ony 30% of traffic coming from search engines, i.e. organically. Suggests the numbers have been inflated by purchasing page views. Supported by the % of web traffic coming from India. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/everipedia.org?ver=alpha

Highlight: 1‑2millionuniquevisitorseachmonth

e9e011c2da079e58e7b1d00f9f184100

cubanoBHlounge

@Karl , its interesting to see the differences between Everipedia and Chainblx system.
Everipedia is easier, but may guid wrong results as @HopeHK points out.
Chainblx is complicated IDK if Chainblx could make it simpler as they offer accreditation and mediation. A easier system would probably bring more wp and bountyhunters to the forum.

56434a00eac2eb22ef0f9b2b79e51838

HopeHK

@cubanoBHlounge I think the chainblx system is already pretty easy to use, I would suggest maybe attaching the judgements directly to the claims though, but otherwise it was pretty easy to figure out in the beginning.

058bbcba88e1ae6f40db706b52b3481b

THE JUDGE!!!!!!

Opinion #63: An opinion has been issued in Automatic Claim Number - cla1557234253.

It was decided to release 0% of the funds. The jury voted in their opinion to release an average of 0% of the bounty and a median of 0% of the bounty.

Please see below for the opinion of the jury:

• Opinion #1 - You could make it a claim with proving that the company is not registered as business in California. But just that they don't give all addresses may just be security for them self or other reasons.
• Opinion #2 - i agree with the flag - From Everipedia:
  
  We are incorporated in the Cayman Islands.
• Opinion #3 - i agree with the flag - From Everipedia:
  
  We are incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

Claim: Although the whitepaper gives contact emails, it doesn't list or indicate any physical address or headquarters location. The Everipedia website lists headquarters in Santa Monica, Stockholm, and the Cayman Islands, but only gives a physical address in the Cayman Islands. In and of itself, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. However, since the website has an 'Investors' section, and contains a downloadable investor presentation, it is concerning that they do not list a physical address in the US or Sweden, where the team is presumably physically based. This seems to indicate a deliberate lack of transparency for an unknown reason.

Highlight: S a m K a z e m i a n , K e d a r I y e r , T r a v i s M o o r e , T h e o d o r F o r s e l i u s , L a r r y S a n g e r s a m @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m k e d a r @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m t r a v i s @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m t h e o d o r @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m l a r r y @ e v e r i p e d i a . c o m

c3f725692a3854ddf5bf29d5b036d9bd

dstupar

I am here to respectfully address potential concerns for fraudulent activity or behavior that would put other people’s assets at risk. 


By reading the paper it is misleading that the currency will be stable and non inflationary, with suggestion of having appropriate burning/inflationary policies in place. Upon review of the ticker chart, the volatility is incredibly high from its conception. +90% Volatility. 
If the business has already succeeded in successfully raising in excess of $30 Million dollars, why has the platform not achieved stability? 

Furthermore, if Wikipedia is a failure and the benefit of Everipedia is the ability to capture monetary value, then why has the value of the coin declined?

What systems are in place to maintain stability and decrease volatility? 

If Everipedia can capture outside income besides that of staking, then where is the money going? I see many words about generating revenue, having an excess to which it needs to be burned. The values and the charts speak as if there is a huge money sink somewhere. 

This looks like a financial instrument that was designed to bleed losses for profit. 

This concept, and technology would be a huge success if it was treated more like a Gold Standard, than a tech startup.



With a system that is constantly generating incoming deposits, requires staking to participate, and has anti inflationary burning policies in place, then I would expect to see an extremely stable and slowly rising coin price to reflect those policies.

Looking at the historical chart, it would appear that the price chart is following the story of a volatile tech start up. Massive gains, massive losses.




“Another possibility is to auction off the IQ generated from transaction fees for
EOS, which would then be bound by an EOS smart contract to automatically
purchase RAM or other resources as needed to sustain operations. An auction
would only occur if it were detected that RAM was near capacity, say 90%.”



White paper clearly states intent to manipulate volatility to generate revenue. While nothing is inherently wrong with this concept, it is counter to the stated purpose of the currency and could be considered a Pump and Dump masked behind what appears to be an encyclopedia of verified knowledge. If you cannot trust the value or liquidity of a currency, then how can you trust the content?

 Considering the stability of the platform is important, It would be imperative to include the real numbers in various situations to prove that the systems work. Is the rate of burn greater than the rate of inflation? How is this measured? Who controls it? Can a Delegated Voting Group manipulate this system? Can the Founders Manipulate this system?

The 21 day vesting period seems excessive, it would be convenient for the people who have access to the allocated funds to trade them and capitalize on volatility of cryptocurrencies while the end user sits for 3 weeks waiting to edit a botany article. 


It would be a serious ethical violation to create a platform upon the facade of stability, knowledge, truth, verification, when in fact it is a huge money sink and purposely seeks volatility. 

Token Slashing, this is another volatility inducing concept. Anyone who is in control of the “governance” module could make a sweeping slash at an odd hour of the night to a few thousand accounts. This action could start a panic of sales, or a buying frenzy. These forms of price manipulation would have the potential for volatility abuse. 


Delegated Voting is another concern, it would be too easy for the market of accurate encyclopedia data to be swayed and manipulated if you had major players that could swing the votes. An expert could be correct in a situation and a mob of social justice warriors could over run them whilst knowing nothing on the topic. Especially, when winning comes with profit. 

Creating a low volume, high volatility trading environment is counteractive to the goal of the company as I read it, and it is definitely counteractive to hosting an accurate encyclopedia of information in a trustless world.

There seems to be a large conflict of interest. The people staking real world money into the system are just normal people who want to change the spelling of Color to Colour. The need to capture money from people are who just passionate about spreading knowledge. Tying their money up in accounts that they do not have access to, then intentionally manipulating the value of the currency without giving them the ability to remove their funds?

Someone who wants to correct the date on the day that grumpy cat died, may not fully understand the level of risk they are taking when they choose to participate in this website. 

It would appear that this is a binary system beyond the facade, where traders and AI abuse a volatile market, while the unsuspecting masses think they are trying to edit their favorite band’s discography list.









Sources:


https://nulltx.com/everipedia-interview-dr-larry-sanger/


https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/everipedia/#charts

a5567bd5cf88e04f1c7d18ca35d08e09

THE JUDGE!!!!!!

Opinion #65: An opinion has been issued in Automatic Claim Number - cla1557331685.

It was decided to release 0% of the funds. The jury voted in their opinion to release an average of 1% of the bounty and a median of 0% of the bounty.

Please see below for the opinion of the jury:

• Opinion #1 - They did not say it was unique to their business model. Sorry not a valid claim for me.
• Opinion #2 - This is just describing risk inherent with a startup, not really a bounty-worthy claim.
• Opinion #3 - Although the whitepaper does not state that this model is unique, you could assume that it is so based on the quote from the whitepaper. But we can not just assume, we need to present factual evidence. Also, the bounty hunter does not have a claim. It is just a statement that could have just been entered as a comment instead of a claim. If the claim was written better I would have probably awarded more bounty.

Claim: All Tokens benefit from market speculation. This is not unique to their model. When the utility of the network is low, such as in the initial period when the network is small, the incentive for users of the token is only its speculative value. As the network grows so does the utility of that token on the network rather than the speculative value and so the network grows exponentially.

Highlight: Thetransferfeemodelweproposewillallowthenetworktobenefitfrommarketspeculation.

199c3f21734999ae30e05304ba97b8f9

THE JUDGE!!!!!!

Opinion #66: An opinion has been issued in Automatic Claim Number - cla1557332042.

It was decided to release 0% of the funds. The jury voted in their opinion to release an average of 1% of the bounty and a median of 0% of the bounty.

Please see below for the opinion of the jury:

• Opinion #1 - The claim made is irrelevant to the theme of the statement; regardless of tokens being held or moved by trading platforms at different times, market speculations will still occur.
• Opinion #2 - Bounty hunter provides a comment, not a claim.
• Opinion #3 - the claim is true and could use clarification in the white paper. small bounty is ok here as it seems like a human error rather than misleading.

Claim: tokens held on the majority of the large trading platforms DO NOT physically move to different wallets on the underlying blockchain with each trade. Tokens are held in cold storage by the trading platform and are only transferred once a user is looking to take those tokens off the platform. This is done to increase trading speeds and decrease the risk of attacks.

Highlight: Thetransferfeemodelweproposewillallowthenetworktobenefitfrommarketspeculation.Sinceonlynon‑governance,non‑stakingtransfersincurafee,thespeculatorsare,inaway,fundingthedevelopmentoftheEveripediaNetwork.Thetransferfeecanbeburnedtocreateadeflationarysupply,usedtofundnetworkdevelopment,orusedtofurthereconomicactivityontheplatform

692b4edc79672d360a12b99f9dd162f5

THE JUDGE!!!!!!

Opinion #67: An opinion has been issued in Automatic Claim Number - cla1557332534.

It was decided to release 0% of the funds. The jury voted in their opinion to release an average of 2% of the bounty and a median of 0% of the bounty.

Please see below for the opinion of the jury:

• Opinion #1 - agreed
• Opinion #2 - Bounty hunter is correct and highlights an issue with Everipedia's process. However, the bounty hunter fails to make a claim and thus submits a statement/comment.
• Opinion #3 - this is just part of the pitch of the business, and the bounty hunter is a good response, but not a claim of error.

Claim: Common response does not = correct response. An expert in a field may have a minority response, however, the correct response.

Highlight: commonresponse‑thecorrectone.

cf7e15505e8d44d8898df67400058ef8

THE JUDGE!!!!!!

Opinion #68: An opinion has been issued in Automatic Claim Number - cla1557334339.

It was decided to release 1% of the funds. The jury voted in their opinion to release an average of 1% of the bounty and a median of 1% of the bounty.

Please see below for the opinion of the jury:

• Opinion #1 - This is true "There is no full economic model provided for the system and therefore no way to verify if the system will work efficiently.", but the bounty hunter would have to show that they claim it will function and it does not.
• Opinion #2 - there really isnt enough information provided here by the bounty hunter from the white paper or the response. no bounty in this claim
• Opinion #3 - The whitepaper could use more clarification on this. I agree with the claim.

Claim: There is no full economic model provided for the system and therefore no way to verify if the system will work efficiently.

Highlight: TokenModule

3f886e0e3995a6f59cdaa1b016e8c1b4

karl

Compliments to everipedia for being accredited and thanks to all members for your work.

d58c4bc7753124d8276e2120816f0394

HARISIO185

Hi

Find attached a copy of my claim.

Harris

03d84c25a7a7763c3e681dbcae6086cc

CryptoHunter

Glad to see this paper make it through and it will be interesting to see how the model works over the long term. It could be a way forward in a lot of different applications.

9a35171425f44bf6e4ee368b15302554