Chainlink Home » The Anti-Social Social Challenge
The Anti-Social Social Challenge
4
▲   8
Unconsciously addicted to social networks? Don't worry, we all are. Fear not! The Anti-Social Social Challenge is here to incentivize us all to tone it down a notch. Ever got paid to do nothing?
General Submission & Positive Impact
Working but buggy
Makers
Raphael Papillon
Tags
Node.js
Smart Contracts
Solidity
ethereum

The goal of the Anti-Social Social Challenge is to incentivize people to reduce their usage of social platforms by going cold-turkey on Facebook for a month.

For starters, users wanting to participate to the challenge will need to grant access to some of their information (posts, likes, photos and videos) to a Facebook Application. Afterwards, using blockchain technology along with Chainlink, they will need to register to a Smart-Inactivity-Contract by sending their info and a collateral (in the form of Ethereum).

The contract will then pull their current latest activity on the platform. The challenge is now to stay inactive for a month. If the user either posts, likes, or publish a photo or video, his balance is redistributed equally to all other users actively registered in the contract. However, if after a whole month, his current latest activity hasn't changed, the user will get back his collateral plus any redistributions he was part of.

Don't forget to share about the challenge before registering! The more people registered, the more redistributions you might get!

Screenshots
Comments (4)
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Brent Riva · posted about 1 month ago

@Brayton I think you're looking at this the wrong way. This seems very similar to how 'fantasy' sports leagues are run. Friends can pool together and compete with payouts handled for them; honestly a use-case that should be looked at in the next hackthon. How difficult does it get to hound people for paying to be in a fantasy league!?

Raphael Papillon
Maker
· posted about 1 month ago

Interesting opinion, thank you for the feedback! I'm curious to know if, in your opinion, a product such as Beeminder is actually better than GymPact since the premise is the same, but without the redistribution (therefore no Adverse Selection issue). It simply is a contract with collateral that you sign with yourself. In insurance cases and such, I understand how the Adverse Selection is an issue, but when your base cost and base reward stays the same without regards to how others perform, I'm not sure. In my opinion, the redistribution shouldn't be seen as a problem, but a bonus. The main objective being to respect your contract with yourself, not to get rich. If you take a look at the Github's README, I also list a couple mechanics that could be implemented to avoid cheating. I might be wrong on all this, so feel free to refute me! I'm newish to this but I do enjoy talking about game theory!

Brayton Goodall · posted about 1 month ago

This isn't a very good product, because just like GymPact, it suffers from an Adverse Selection problem [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection]. The incentives are in the wrong directions, so sorry, you lose my vote. However the Facebook Application part is very nice, so congratulations on that!

Raphael Papillon
Maker
· posted about 1 month ago

This is the contract address on Ropsten : https://ropsten.etherscan.io/address/0x89ffaff8c9414cdbff0dc078bd6ae4964298fc0a In the contract we can see User 1 and User 2 registering with a 0.1 Eth deposit each. For testing purposes, the contract's duration is set to 5 minutes instead of 30 days. During those 5 minutes, User 1 posted something on Facebook. When User 1 called the `update` function, his funds were redistributed equally between the active users (User 1, and the contract itself keeps a part of the redistribution). When user 2 called the `update` function, he received back his collateral (0.1eth) + the redistribution (0.5eth). A bug will show that he still has a balance left in the contract but it is indeed gone. Bug is fixed on Github but not deployed.