The MetaCert Protocol White Paper: Future Work
This section covers how the Protocol will integrate Nodes and mitigate potential risks.
Contents
Clicking on each heading will take you that section’s medium post.
1. Index
2. Introduction
5. MetaCert’s Prior and Related Work
6. Design Goals
7. Solution: The MetaCert Protocol
8. Future Work
9. Token Sale Breakdown *(This section is not in the PDF)
Future Work
Our system will be able to detect the utility of a submission based on how valuable it is to the Protocol. This value is derived from the usage statistics for that URI. For example, if a Submitter has successfully helped to categorize a URI that is being blocked by one or more products that help to protect a lot of End Users, the Submitter’s participation could be considered high quality.
Imagine a future where Crypto exchanges rely on curated lists of wallet addresses that contain trust and reputation information about their owners and historical transactions, or App and Bot marketplaces utilizing curated lists to protect people from fake applications that are malicious.
A particularly powerful and unique aspect of the context of this whitepaper is that MetaCert currently has a variety of companies and communities successfully utilizing a number of productized implementations built on top of our centralized, categorized registry.
The decentralization of this registry on the blockchain, powered by our Token means that we then have two areas to work on: (1) the production and maintenance of the MetaCert Protocol and additional spoke systems to power user interaction, i.e., validation, participant reputation, data microservices and (2) building new and improving existing products on the Protocol, e.g., products using registry categories that MetaCert specializes in.
With this in mind, when we consider future work we can talk equally about work that MetaCert can perform from a product implementation context to further the Protocol itself.
For example, future work on Protocol implementation for a category would include working with browser companies to integrate and expand the successful Cryptonite codebase. The intention would be to allow browsers to interact directly with the Protocol to provide better trust validation instead of relying on SSL extended validation certificates. We could also extend the Protocol’s registry of validated wallet address for consumption via Software Development Kits (SDKs) or microservices.
Another example of future work on the Protocol would be improving reputation management, expanding Node Operator capabilities and enhancing capabilities of category owner management.
In addition to the existing features of the Protocol, the following key areas are examples of some of the future work that we’ll be undertaking as part of producing the Protocol.
Nodes
Organizations with specific expertise will be invited to participate in our Protocol as Nodes. For example, trusted fact checking organizations could become Nodes of News Credibility, being rewarded for the hard work that they already do on a daily basis.
Existing open source projects may wish to become Nodes. In doing so, they could benefit from the tokenized reputation system while earning Tokens themselves. At the same time, they would reduce their technical support overhead — all of this while retaining control of their own branded version of the Node.
Node Operator
Node Operators are entities with computer servers that wish to host the MetaCert Protocol in pieces (Thin Nodes) or in its entirety (Full Nodes). They collect a fee for providing the data storage, computational power, and bandwidth to service purchasers of the MetaCert ecosystem.
Protocol Categorizer
Categorizers build the supply-side of the Protocol for whatever purposes they desire. A Categorizer can be individuals, groups, or companies, like MetaCert operating multiple security based categories such as XXX, phishing, and malware.
Categorizers will pay a high submission fee to create categories for resources where a guarantee of trust and reputation adds value to the demand side of the Protocol. For example there could be categories to validate “funded startups that are hiring” where potential Categorizers may be companies like LinkedIn or AngelList.
The Categorizer will set the percentage revenue share for Submitters and Validators within a category.
Mitigation of Potential Risks
Amongst the normal risks associated with building new things that have potential to change the way the world works for the better, some of the specific risks we are giving a great deal of consideration include the following:
“How can we ensure no one single entity can dominate a category on the MetaCert Protocol that can adversely affect the quality of trust and reputation within a category?”
We will introduce inherently designed game mechanics into the Protocol that will ensure that the owner of any category can not perform the majority of the validations of the URIs within their category. Our Protocol is already designed to reward the category owner, Submitter, and Validator where the category owner sets the percentage revenue share received by the Submitter and Validator. This means that economic market forces will determine which category gets the most participation from Submitters, who are the lifeblood of the economy.
In some cases a large entity may dominate a category, such as ourselves at MetaCert, within both the XXX and Phishing categories. In those instances where a bulk of submissions comes from a sole entity in any category they own, we will ensure a requirement for a majority of submissions and validations to come from independent parties. This restriction will provide a great opportunity for other parties to get involved in the validation processes, thereby participating in Token generation remuneration as the resources they validate are increasingly used within the market.
“How can we prevent fake entries on the MetaCert Protocol?”
The system design includes a transparent challenger mechanism that will enable anyone to dispute any entry on the Protocol. Each successful challenge of an entry will result in the relevant Submitter and Validator losing reputation value and Tokens. Exceptions to this include ownership changes, or a hacked or compromised website which has no connection with the original classification and validation.
Contents
Clicking on each heading will take you that section’s medium post.
1. Index
2. Introduction
5. MetaCert’s Prior and Related Work
6. Design Goals
7. Solution: The MetaCert Protocol
8. Future Work
9. Token Sale Breakdown *(This section is not in the PDF)
🖌 Please feel free to respond with questions or comments about anything you read in our White Paper or Technical Paper directly within Medium, and be sure to engage with other members of the community who also have questions or comments.
🔐 MetaCert Protocol is based on established enterprise-grade technology that powers live products. These products protect hundreds of thousands of people on the Internet today, but this is just the start. We need the community to help us iterate this work. Together we can help make the Internet a safer place for everyone.
☞ Don’t forget to click 👏🏻 to let MetaCert and others know how much you appreciate this post.
☞ Install Cryptonite to help protect your crypto from phishing scams. https://metacertprotocol.com/cryptonite
☞ Use our Telegram Security Bot to check the status of links and crypto addresses, and warn users about phishing in Telegram communities. https://metacertprotocol.com/telegram-bot
☞ Join our Telegram channel where you can engage with the core team and the community. https://t.me/metacert
