Games, Claims, and Blockchains

Participants in the Quantchain project establish their stake by making a series of claims about their qualifications and achievements. Once the claim is made and registered as such on the indelible record, another participant needs to verify that that claim is true and correct as stated. If the claim is validated, then the validator and the claimant receive an amount of Quant is proportional to the value of their stake. At that point, their transaction records permanently link both the claimant and the validator.

[Quant is the cryptocurrency of the Integrated Engineering Blockchain Consortium (IEBC) with first issue date of December 15, 2015. Quant is novel among digital tokens for representing value intrinsic to the ingenuity of people.]

As the length of the individual transaction record grows, it becomes more useful and their stake in the game increases. More importantly, with only a few entries, a transaction record could be formed into a unique smart key that may open or close matching smart contracts for the discovery of economic opportunity.

Game Mechanics:

Blockchains are inherently easy to audit because they provide an indelible chronological history of events. The claimant carries a risk in submitting to an immutable Blockchain a claim that nobody is willing to validate — this is tantamount to fraud and would be easily discoverable. Likewise, a validator carries a risk in validating a claim that they are not reasonably certain is true. In the event that the claimant commits an egregious act any time in the future, the Blockchain transaction record may be audited and thereby exposing a false validation, if applicable.

While nobody can be held complicit for the future acts of another person, a transaction record that shows a substantial number of unverified claims would make it difficult to find future validators. Likewise, a validator, implicated in a substantial number of adverse audits, may find similar difficulties. Both may experience loss of stake and reduced ability to be awarded Quant, unless they undergo a continued education or rehabilitation — validated, of course.

The best game strategy would be for the claimant and the validator to be sufficiently familiar with each other and close enough in expertise and competence to confirm the body of the claim. It would be wise that the claimant and validator review the claim prior to submitting it to the Blockchain such that each are assured that the transaction will be complete and the appropriate payout received. In this manner collaboration could be highly profitable in Quant.

Example 1: A claimant may declare a degree from an accredited university. The validator of the claimant would be the office of the university provost. Both the claimant and the provost would receive Quant for the claim and it would therefore be in the best interest of each to report each other correctly. By the way, the validator of the university provost would be the accreditation body, and then the department of education, etc., and so on. This demonstrates a transaction vector for the claim of education.

Example 2: A Licensed Engineer claims that a building is safe to occupy and provides an engineering stamp. The State Licensing Board has already validated the stamp. If current, a colleague, mentor, or the corporation that employs the engineer would be signaled of the status before validating the inspection. As such, logic features may be built into transaction records. This represents a transaction vector for the validation of the claim.

Example 3: A person may claim to have designed a satellite ejection mechanism. Other validated claims on the person’s transaction record include aerospace engineering degree, spacecraft design, a material science patent and many other similarly linked tags. The validator of the claim shows, say, 5 or more similar claims on their transaction record. The probability of the claim being true is high. The probability of fraud, negligence, or incompetence is very low.

The Dominant Strategy

The best game strategy overall would be for communities of practice to form in real life allowing for a diverse combinations of claimants and validators acting as a network to meet each other to form professional bonds. There is little incentive for acting maliciously, with low integrity, or outside one’s competence. The greatest compensation would result for from an individual doing what they most enjoy for which they are most qualified, and/or have a special talent. There would be a strong incentive to cultivate a personal transaction record for optimum performance in corresponding networks.