Name: Citzen.app
Email: Lmilfont@hotmail.com
Geo location: South America
Company or individual? Both (Tezos.rio or Luiz Milfont)
Company website: tezos.rio
Name of project: Citzen.app
Detailed description: A social network based on Tezos blockchain where users rate/review community teams, projects and members, based on their merit and effort towards the ecosystem.
Experience: more than 30 years of programming experience. Also, we have already a working MVP.
Social handle: @tezosCitzen
Funding amount: 20,000 tez
Address to be funded:
tz1WXK2yWvAhaFdXEjsXuHenfgfDr9mqWiBw
Proposed goals: create an astonishing collaborative platform on Tezos where members communicate and award each other for good reputation and merit towards the ecosystem
The amount is far too high I think for a basic app like this, and aren’t you also selling a token for it?
Also, if you can buy tokens to vote with, can’t any project just buy themselves into a high rating?
I really don’t think the amount is too high. Actually I think the exact opposit.
The app is basic now and everything needs resources to grow. Citzen.app was conceived exactly to solve the funding problem on Tezos and directing it to whomever the community thinks deserves more, based on merit.
Citzen.app has strong theoretical foundations on communication studies of the Toronto School of thought and the ideas of Marshal McLuhan and Pierre Levy. See that without any kind of funding, it has already achieved important milestones and Tezos community is very fond of it (just ask on social media and check the feedback).
The token and its use and how it’s used is strategicallly conceived under the gamification theory and the idea is exactly to stimulate competition. Of course the voting is always suposed to be improved in the long run. We have two weeks of existance so far and we believe in delivering first and adjusting later.
Citzen.app is already a strong use case and we can really conquer the world with appropriate resources. It can make a huge impact on Tezos usage and adoption, as we intend to let people evaluate items outside Tezos sphere.
Citzen.app was conceived exactly to solve the funding problem on Tezos and directing it to whomever the community thinks deserves more, based on merit.
It’s not based on merit if anyone can manipulate the ratings by simply buying a cheap token to vote with.
Citzen.app has strong theoretical foundations on communication studies of the Toronto School of thought and the ideas of Marshal McLuhan and Pierre Levy.
It’s a simple review app, don’t understand what is so theoretical about it. Can you link to the source and explain how it applies?
I perfectly understand your worries and doubts. It’s natural and healthy to question.
Citzen.app is way , way more than, and goes far beyond just a review app, though.
I don’t understand too, how Elon Musk can deliver satellites to low earth orbit with reusable rockets that go there do their job and then come back. But the fact is he does, despite my lack of knowledge. I could write a post to him saying: hell, it’s just rockets.
From my side only, Citzen.app is the result of at least 3 years of studies in the area of the recent digital revolution phenomena.
Although not perceived easily by the naked eye, the reviews and voting are just a tiny detail of what Citzen.app is all about.
We are heavily based on the ideas of Marshal McLuhan who once said “The medium is the message”. This means that, you are product of the technology you use. When you drive a car, your brain can’t tell the difference between your body and the car. You become the car (this is known as brain plasticity). In the same way, when you use social networks, or your cell phone, or Uber, or, in the past, TV, newspapers, books, all this mediums tells much about those who use it, and builds a brain model that shapes how those people think, talk and act.
Baby boomers generation, for example, had a tendency to believe everything that the government said was true. People from generation X had the same feeling about newspapers and TV (if it’s on the papers, then it’s true). Millenials will say the same about Internet (if it’s on the Internet, then it’s true)… Generation Z will believe in the social media (Facebook, Twitter…)…
So, it’s not the phisycal item, but the process, what builds the users experience, perception, and what drives their behaviour.
It’s not the “just simple review app”. It’s what this does to its users, how they feel, and how they act because of being part of it.
That being said, of course we will improve the voting mechanism and all other rewarding tools. We are only 2 weeks old now. Notice, however, that we already have a working product. Our way of building software is like F1 car ajusting before the race, or rockets being updated before the launch.
If we somewhere in time have access to funding, then we can grow exponentially. Every river begins its course as little drops of water.
You seem to be giving a lot of dismissing summary judgements from your first post. Maybe instead ask questions so the poster can reply. That way:
A. Your opinion might change and it would be good that you asked those questions to provide clarity for yourself and improve the communication of the original proposer.
B. Your opinion might not change but your opinion would have more credibility because you can say you asked the right questions, did the due diligence, and that all fed in to your conclusion.
to solve the funding problem on Tezos and directing it to whomever the community thinks deserves more, based on merit.
I agree with the other poster. This quoted statement is untrue for the current iteration of the citzen.app. The voting system is incredibly easy to manipulate, both by the owners of each app and by members of the community who have a vested interest. Owners of dApps can spam vote for themselves for almost free once they get 5 stars. Community members can purchase the token for next to nothing
E.g. Here is an example. The dApp in question receiving these votes has been unusable for many many months, yet its being spam voted 5 stars repeatedly. None of these are legitimate votes
The current ratings are not a reflection of the communities thoughts or wishes, they are entirely artificial. Crypto is plagued with influencers/hype/scams/ponzi schemes etc. I’d be against giving any funds to a system that makes no effort to prevent abuse. This could lead to a dangerous environment for the community
Funding amount: 20,000 tez
I also agree that this is a huge amount of money to request. The app currently has major design flaws, but even ignoring that for a moment, you’ve not provided any concrete details as to what you would do with it. Your supplied “proposed goals” is a single sentence, that doesn’t list any concrete features, changes or metrics. I’m very concerned about where this money would go
We are heavily based on the ideas of Marshal McLuhan who once said “The medium is the message”. This means that, you are product of the technology you use …
I’m very confused by this long response, that I feel is quite unrelated to the question/discussion at hand. Again you are asking for a lot of money (enough to fund a mid level developer a couple of months, and pay for quite a bit of hosting if its not already free), yet no concrete features/changes, no technical challenges or ideas, no firm goals etc. When asking for such money, i’d avoid focusing heavily on theory and focus more on the practical
1 Like
Well, I am a strong free speech advocate. So, thank you for your feedback. The fierce criticism tells much and shows me I’m on the right track!
However, time is precious. I’ve got so much work to do.
If I am eligible to be funded by this initiative, will be awesome. If not, fine too. Life goes on.
Regards,
Luiz.
