The MetaCert Protocol White Paper: Token Mechanics
By: Paul Walsh
Tags: Cryptocurrency, Blockchain, Security, Cybersecurity, Bitcoin

The MetaCert Protocol White Paper: Token Mechanics

This section covers Token mechanics, validation fees, Token use, and an improved brand verification process.

Download a PDF version of the White Paper

Contents

Clicking on each heading will take you that section’s medium post.

1. Index

2. Introduction

3. The MetaCert Protocol

4. Token Mechanics

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)

Token Mechanics

Staking for URI Claims

Submitters and Validators stake the Token to claim submissions and validations of a URI belonging in a certain category. The number of URIs that a staking amount can claim varies depending on parameters such as the category, link query traffic, and possibly metrics related to reputation. Staked Tokens can be challenged and lost if submissions and validations are overturned.

The stakers may earn future revenues on the claimed URIs by successfully identifying, submitting or validating the URIs. They are also entitled to a portion of the URI query fees paid to access the information that they discover. Stakers can only revenues earn based on their own directed efforts and the market’s demand for those efforts. The fee amount will depend on a number of factors such as the importance of the submissions and validations, time-value of information, and ease of validation. Information about URIs become stale over time and so should the amount of fees collected by purveyors of older information compared to newer information. Additionally, the network collects a marginal fee to sustain its perpetuation and for improvements, but does not seek to earn a profit.

Because a Submitter or Validator can claim a limited number of URIs proportional to their staked amount, the time-value of money creates an economic incentive to pick the best, highest trafficked links for submission and validation. This serves to ensure data quality on the network and prevent market congestion in which URI submissions are brute-forced and the network becomes relatively useless. The primary determinant is the size of the participant’s stake, the amount of effort expended by the participant, and the selection of the categories and URIs on which to expend these efforts.

Validation Fees

Tokens are rewarded on a sliding scale based on the complexity and importance of the information being submitted and validated. For URIs that are more difficult and time consuming to identify, review and validate, such as a phishing website, users will earn more Tokens. Similarly, time consuming verification efforts such as verifying ownership of a resource like a domain name, bot, app, or API, will be rewarded with a greater amount of Tokens.

Owners of resources will have the option to place Token bounty incentives so that Submitters and Validators are rewarded for their participation. This creates a signalling mechanism in which URI owners may request the scrutiny of the network’s Validators for certain relevant checks. Diverse validations across ownership, domain names, and site content will start scarce and become comprehensive over time, possibly supplanting Extended Validation certificates in both usefulfuness and trustworthiness while extending verification beyond domain name ownership.

In the future, the number of Tokens awarded to participants will be determined by the utility of the category. For example, a URI that is categorized as sports may earn each participant less than a phishing submission due to phishing being more difficult and time consuming to detect compared to sports content. Phishing also requires anti-phishing experts to validate submissions whereas URI submissions for sports wouldn’t require an expert in sports to validate it. It may require multiple people who meet a combined reputation score where their category experience isn’t a prerequisite.

URIs that require validation will be randomly divided amongst all validating participants to prevent coordinated groups from carrying out centralized voting bias. Furthermore, Submitters and Validators will start with a low reputation score, allowing them to participate with a small number of submissions and validations. As their reputation score increases, the number of URIs they can submit or validate in a given timeframe will increase. For example, new participants will be restricted to 5 URIs per day.

Improved Brand Verification Process

We are designing a new and improved verification process for registered users or assignees of Internet resources, such as a domain names, IP addresses, bots, applications, crypto wallet addresses, and social media accounts. This will help protect brands on the Internet from impersonators damaging their brand. We believe this new verification process can be more economical, transparent and accessible for any user and also address the challenges of Extended Validation certificates. Brands will pay in Tokens to submit their domain names and social media accounts to be verified. Protocol participants will then verify the integrity of this information. Once a brand’s submissions have been verified as true, the information will be stored on the blockchain.

How Tokens Can Be Used

The following are a few example use cases demonstrating how Tokens are earned and spent by participants in the Protocol.

Example: Paying for Services Utilizing the Protocol

The most natural use case for the Tokens is the ability for individuals and companies to use them to pay for a variety of security products and services that incorporate the Protocol. Existing products offered by MetaCert will be the first to utilize the Tokens as a payment method with other companies looking to do the same for their own integrations. In addition to paying for products and services, users will be in a unique position to earn Tokens by submitting and validating URIs on the Protocol. Their participation not only serves as a way to help protect themselves as well as others, but also gives them an opportunity to earn and spend Tokens for these products.

Example: Community-Driven Child Protection

Jackie has two children, Adrian age 7 and Sophia age 12, so she uses parental control software to prevent them from stumbling upon adult content on the Internet. Jackie is also an active participant in our network and submits and validates adult content that her children might inadvertently access. For her efforts, Jackie is rewarded in Tokens which may be used to pay for the parental control software that protects her children or sold to other parents who might wish to pay for the same software themselves.

Example: Payment For Validation By Resource Owners

An individual, group, or company owns Internet resources. They turn to our verification platform to ensure users are not lead astray when attempting to access these legitimate resources. To fund the validation on the Protocol, resource owners pay Tokens. In turn, Validators who participate in verifying that resource are rewarded with a share from the owner’s Token payment.

1. Index

2. Introduction

3. The MetaCert Protocol

4. Token Mechanics

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)