---
# System prepended metadata

title: UniRep attester ideas

---

# UniRep attester ideas

**Requirement:**
must be something solve real world problem, **"Innovation with a Purpose"** as the driver for these ideas. Think about something that people need, and want to use it.

Submit your idea like this:
**Product title (any temporary name)
Submit by (your name)
Description
Problem you have identify and want to solve**

This doc is made for UniRep team, as seedingof attester idea, the choose idea will be built as join effort within the core contributors, and remember our goal in PSE is to create, build a free & open society.

## Deadline: 6/6

___

**Working name**: vigilant robot
**Author**: Chance

**Short Description**

Decentralized long form publishing platform for independent writers. Writers are paid using quadratic funding.

**Problem**

Writers must either write for a publisher like NYT/WSJ/etc to receive a salary, or write independently and receive little income. Publishers restrict what can be published and do not allow _anonymous_ publishing.


**Implementation Description**

Users can publish written work by associating an epoch key with the document. Users can apply changes to the document after publishing by attesting to text diffs so the full history of the document is visible.

To avoid unnecessary gas use maybe writers are anonymous and readers are pseudonymous? e.g. writers collect reputation (which allows them to collect part of the quadratic funds) but readers are pseudonymous so it's easier to track who has read what.

Possible idea for UI:
- writer portal that is unirep authed
- reader portal that is web2 authed



---
**Product name:** The source fountain
Submit by : Chiali

About: a platform that connect with whistleblower and reporter. so that reporter can publish the story to wider audience while protecting the source identity.


**Problem:**
Platform like wikileak has encounter multiple challenges of sources' identity, how might we provide an easy and safe place for people who wants to share serious issues that range from company to gov. setting. Social app like reddit has popular subreddit called: https://www.reddit.com/r/Whistleblowers/ but how reader can verify the trustworthy aspect and give reader a simple way to identify if the source are real.




---
**product name**: Collaborative news
**idea from**: Miha

doc: https://hackmd.io/yQqv3zD7SCKoKFZOht_vXw?view






---
Product name: Anonymous fund raising platform
Submit by: Chiali

Problem:
In 2022, during the canadian trucker convoy, public has been using GoFundMe to donate the protest effort. Public who has donate to the movment has been hamiluated by other, even worse the canadian gov. freeze their bank account. by giving the opputurnity to be anon, donator can avoid all the sub-sequence that occurs in this movement.

---
**Product name:** ReviewMe
**Submitted by:** TPan

**Short Description**

Platform that allows for anonymous reviews of:
1. coworkers and collaborators (eg: company or DAO)
2. Products

**Problem**

Reviews are an important part of professional and product development. 

In a work environment, it helps to improve performance, support engagement, and create a healthy learning environment.

In a product environment, it helps to improve a product.

However, public feedback sometimes promotes groupthink and prevents honest constructive feedback from happening.  

**Implementation Description**

*Work setting*
Collaborators provide feedback to each other in an anonymized way. 

Note: This can only be done in larger organizations as this would be ineffective with small groups and teams. The reputation portion of the procol could still be applicable here. 

*Product setting*
Reviewers review product and provide feedback. Reviewers are incentivized to provide thoughtful feedback through incentivization mechanisms and by collecting reputation. Higher feedback score = higher portion of incentive (quadratic funding?), and priority and/or access to reviewing other products. 

Eg: A product can request reviews from all reviewers capped at 10 reviews, and request an additional 10 reviews from reviewers with a reputation score of 50+. 