Facebook PixelA platform to request detailed knowledge incentivized by rewards
Create newCreate new
Sessions onlySessions only
Ideas onlyIdeas only

A platform to request detailed knowledge incentivized by rewards

Image credit: Sigmund / unsplash.com

Darko Savic
Darko Savic Jan 22, 2021
A platform where people specify what they want to understand and pledge a $ bounty to whoever first explains it well enough.

People then submit concisely written explainers with references that help the learner scale-up knowledge as far as they want to take it.

Video tutorials could also be submitted to take the learner through a how-to process. For example how to build a drone, how to plant a forest using the Miyawaki method, etc.

The knowledge is shared publicly and can be used by anyone free of charge. The person who pledged the bounty paid for it so that the future learners can benefit as well.

While the request for knowledge is actively awaiting submissions other people can contribute to the bounty to make it more lucrative.
Creative contributions
Know someone who can contribute to this idea? Share it with them on , , or

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or


Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments

salemandreus2 months ago
Several exploits to look out for:
It'd have to be safeguarded against people being able to get their friends to upvote their solutions or exploit them in some way - particularly if, as Darko Savic mentioned, people might consider using it as a form of activism. It seems a stretch at this point, but if there is a way to exploit for a reward, people will do it: People could create fake problems, invent fake terminology that they then define, or even try to swing the voter (or voters or OP) towards favouring them due to a fake sob story about how desperately they need the money, which would undermine the platform's reliability and end up turning into a spam-subpost generator.

Not saying that will happen, but it is ideal if the platform itself takes potential exploits into consideration.

And on that note, awarding bounties should definitely require approval, not just be awarded by default, because that would DEFINITELY encourage people to spam on the off chance they get the bounty as the only response.
And to prevent the spam, it should also be clear that these exploits WON'T work - people will take chances if there is an opportunity and they won't get penalised for trying.

One way to ensure people do not game the system is to let the people who vote on the solutions only be a randomly whitelisted group of reviewers -say only 15% of people who see this post are enabled to vote on its feasibility- or potentially only a randomised people from countries other than the contributer/bounty hunter's IP geolocation- so that they can't call up all their friends (or create bots from auto-generated accounts or email addresses) and get them to all upvote both their solution and the question post, raising both the bounty and their chances of winning it, or their percentage granted.

On that note, bot-prevention/script-prevention mechanisms such as Capcha or OTPs should definitely be employed because people will definitely try to find ways to mine the system and can get really creative about anything that is programmable. Also spambot prevention because if someone is generating posts faster than a human then even if they are correct answers they should definitely be flagged and put on pause for a moderator - they could be generating some kind of SEO-optimised search script to scrape and plagiarise from the most hit google sites! ๐Ÿ˜„
Darko Savic
Darko Savic2 months ago
Also, people could be required to earn the right to vote by being valuable members of the community and reputable contributors. Maybe it could even work if only people who have a good track record are eligible to contribute in bounty sessions.
salemandreus2 months ago
Darko Savic A similar approach to Stack Overflow's not allowing community members with less than a certain number of community points to upvote questions - in their case not monetisable, probably just to ensure that people upvoting aren't novices or brand new or inexperienced in googling which is another fair point besides the anti-fraud mechanisms.

Whichever the motivations, malicious or misinformed, preventing misinformation along with general spam would be necessary to guarantee faith in the platform and general usability for both requesters and responders.
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni6 months ago
Great idea! I have a related problem. Should the solutions posted by the ideators be made public during the ideation phase? If they are public, other ideators may go through the previous explainers and could be able to build upon that and come up with a brilliant idea, making their idea more superior. In this case, they might receive a better chunk of the bounty but the person who laid the foundation for it, may not. If the solutions are not made public during the ideation phase, a brilliant solution that could have been posted, will not be. Do you choose ethics over advancement? Is there an optimum solution?
Povilas S
Povilas S6 months ago
Great idea. I'm wondering about the technical part of bounty release though. Some people might try to abuse the system and get the advice without paying. They might pretend none of the suggestions was well enough (if it's up to them to decide) so that the bounty would get back to them from escrow or similar system. If the bounty is non-refundable then it's also not fair, because it might happen that the topic would not attract enough attention and just some "bounty hunters" who would try to take it by making use of the situation and posting something rather insignificant (because of the lack of activity then they would get the bounty). This might be the case especially in the early days of the website. So some well-considered rules on this might be necessary.