NFT Registrar: an anti-plagiarism registrar
Summary: We propose the addition of a new Registrar into Kusama to combat NFT plagiarism. The current registrars are not scalable to this use case and focus on a different aspect of verification. As a funded and NFT-focused team, we have the capacity, expertise, and desire to do this checking properly and for free without relying on or even verifying personal information of applicants.
Full proposal below.
As on any NFT platform, there is plagiarism on RMRK's protocol, notably on the Singular platform which currently supports RMRK-based NFTs and is on the brink of supporting Statemine NFTs.
We have some measures in place to protect against this, and more planned (DAO-like community curation, staked minting), but we think manual verification is by far the most effective long term stamp-of-approval an account can get, and is especially important when onboarding an identity as a whole, not just a person's individual works and collections. It is also a necessary part or attracting new users to Kusama.
We propose adding a new Registrar into Kusama. This registrar would be run by the RMRK 4/6 Multi-sig.
The process consists of three phases:
1. Application
A potential minter registers an identity through the Singular platform via a simplified UI just for this purpose.
Note: We recommend minters create an identity specifically for NFTs in order to be able to quickly and easily later on make small alterations to the profile without losing the verification status and having to wait for a traditional re-verification of all fields.
This UI already exists but will be further improved in terms of UX. As an example, visiting "Your Space" on Singular.rmrk.app will allow a user to alter their identity information for the sake of customizing their profile.
The information required to be verified would be at least one portfolio link, and some contact informaton.
Optionally, the user can provide other information as well, like legal name, social media contact info, etc. and all of this information will be vetted separately via cryptographic signatures.
2. Verification
Not-yet-verified minters' work does not show up on landing and SERP pages, but is accessible through direct links until community-curated.
To verify a user account, the vetters will:
- manually inspect the the work of the applicant, performing reverse-image search, reference search, and general web feedback.
- ask the applicant to prove ownership of the linked portfolio by including a cryptographically signed message on the portfolio in question.
- ask the applicant to prove ownership of every social media handle and point of contact using cryptographic signatures. This will be an automatic process similar to that used by Registrars 0 and 1.
Once an applicant has been verified, they are given the KnownGood judgement, essentially earning a "green checkmark" on any compatible UI.
A KnownGood minter's NFTs are automatically shown on the landing pages of standards-compatible UIs, search result pages, and other pages where people might randomly encounter them.
3. Upkeep and loss of verification
If a KnownGood minter breaks the T&C of any standards-implementing UI, their status is invalidated and set as Erroneous, and their works are automatically hidden from all standard-compatible platforms.
Q&A
Can another registrar already do this? Why is another registrar needed?
The current registrars focus on real-world identity. This registrar would focus on approving ownership over original work in an NFT minter's portfolio, which is something beyond the scope, capacity, and level of expertise of other registrars. The RMRK community - which will be included in these vettings - have a unique perspective on NFT matters and art, and our deep involvement in the NFT space across different blockchains uniquely positions us to reliably identify plagiarism. The accounts we verify can be pseudonymous - we only care about originality of work and applicant creativity.
How much would the service cost?
An applicant would be required to deposit 0.5 KSM. This would be refunded after a successful vetting. Those applicants whose judgement request is denied because of a lack of a body of original work will also be refunded. The applicants whose request is judged as Erroneous due to detected plagiarism will not be refunded.
What if you judge wrongly? What's the appeal process?
The vetting team will maintain an open channel of communication with every applicant in order to resolve the judging process quickly and fairly. This same channel can be used for appeals.
About RMRK
RMRK is a protocol and soon-to-be set of pallets and ink smart contracts that make "art legos" possible, producing the most advanced NFT system in the world. The RMRK team is an independent and fully funded entity registered in Switzerland, Zug.
Comments (14)
Comments (14)
I do understand the issue but I am not convinced that the identity verification that is done by the registrar (as it is currently at least) is really adapted to solve the problem you raise.
The main reason being that the registrars verify identities of accounts and in the big majority of the time those identitites do not change over time (if they would, if your change your name for instance, a new judgement will be made).
The issue you are trying to solve is about published NFT content and this is constantly evolving as the author is publishing new work.
I am not too worried about the possibilities to tag a totally good or bad account with the appropriate judgement but I raise the question whether that makes sense.
How do you however handle the following cases:
- an account is mostly honnest but slipped a few times => what judgement ?
- an account is mostly dishonnest but has a few honnest contribs => what judgement ?
- an account WAS honnest up to your judgement => we have now KnownGood that likely should no longer be trusted. Will you force the user to be re-judged? You cannot judge without a request unless using sudo, is that the plan?
- account WAS dishonnest but decided to do things right => I am less worries about this case as users can dump their bad account and start a new one.
I am not convinced that using a registrar to stamp an account is the right way to do. EACH NFT should be checked and the stamp should be set and challengable per NFT, not per owner.
If an owner has a verified identity and 50% of his/her NFTs is plagiarism, the (bad) reputation will do the rest. So it sounds to me that:
- checking the NFTs is a good thing (probably hard but you say you can)
- having a stamp per NFT is the way to go
- showing some aggregated stats per account would make sense so users can judge for themselves: Alice has 1700 NFTs and 80% have been verified OK, Bob has 7 NFTs and 90% have been verified OK.
That opens up however the question of WHAT plagiarism is.
If I take an NFT and transform it, is it plagiarism ? I may even have the authorization of the author and a google reverse search on the image will likely not show this info.
Who in RMRK will have the legitim right to issue
? You may think it is obvious I am not the author of the painting.. What if I tell you I am the author of this digitalization/NFTization though? Would that affect my overall judgement ?
Thanks, good stuff!
To answer your questions:
- an account is mostly honnest but slipped a few times => what judgement ?
Erroneous
- an account is mostly dishonnest but has a few honnest contribs => what judgement ?
Erroneous
- an account WAS honnest up to your judgement => we have now KnownGood that likely should no longer be trusted. Will you force the user to be re-judged? You cannot judge without a request unless using sudo, is that the plan?
This is why we recommend minters make accounts specifically for NFTs as their artist profile, and do not mix them with real-world info accounts.
- account WAS dishonnest but decided to do things right => I am less worries about this case as users can dump their bad account and start a new one.
There is no fixing it, they should discard the account.
If you read the linked posts, you will notice that we have per-NFT curation planned, both by community (almost ready to launch) and through staking (planned for when we have chain logic), so these two aspects will handle the per-NFT approach.
However, there are distinct advantages in doing it in the way we propose:
- We can onboard reputable artists easily and quickly, allowing them to skip community curation and pending statuses, and fast-tracking them to increase adoption.
- We can quickly and in one sweeping motion remove all of an offending artist's work by invalidating his profile when an infraction is found and verified.
It should be noted that MOST people will not opt for this approach and will instead rely on community curation.
In cases where the resolution is not clear and we cannot decide whether or not an NFT is plagiarized or illegal, we simply refuse judgement and leave things to the community through community curation. The registrar-based approval system is in place mainly to fast track good, original artists who need faster access to our ecosystem.
I may even have the authorization of the author and a google reverse search on the image will likely not show this info
This is exactly where the open communication channel is important. We will ask for all this proof during judgement, which is the whole point of being able to communicate with applicants.
I do understand the issue but I am not convinced that the identity verification that is done by the registrar (as it is currently at least) is really adapted to solve the problem you raise.
The main reason being that the registrars verify identities of accounts and in the big majority of the time those identitites do not change over time (if they would, if your change your name for instance, a new judgement will be made).
The issue you are trying to solve is about published NFT content and this is constantly evolving as the author is publishing new work.
I am not too worried about the possibilities to tag a totally good or bad account with the appropriate judgement but I raise the question whether that makes sense.
How do you however handle the following cases:
I am not convinced that using a registrar to stamp an account is the right way to do. EACH NFT should be checked and the stamp should be set and challengable per NFT, not per owner.
If an owner has a verified identity and 50% of his/her NFTs is plagiarism, the (bad) reputation will do the rest. So it sounds to me that:
That opens up however the question of WHAT plagiarism is.
If I take an NFT and transform it, is it plagiarism ? I may even have the authorization of the author and a google reverse search on the image will likely not show this info.
Who in RMRK will have the legitim right to issue
? You may think it is obvious I am not the author of the painting.. What if I tell you I am the author of this digitalization/NFTization though? Would that affect my overall judgement ?
Thanks, good stuff!
To answer your questions:
Erroneous
Erroneous
This is why we recommend minters make accounts specifically for NFTs as their artist profile, and do not mix them with real-world info accounts.
There is no fixing it, they should discard the account.
If you read the linked posts, you will notice that we have per-NFT curation planned, both by community (almost ready to launch) and through staking (planned for when we have chain logic), so these two aspects will handle the per-NFT approach.
However, there are distinct advantages in doing it in the way we propose:
It should be noted that MOST people will not opt for this approach and will instead rely on community curation.
In cases where the resolution is not clear and we cannot decide whether or not an NFT is plagiarized or illegal, we simply refuse judgement and leave things to the community through community curation. The registrar-based approval system is in place mainly to fast track good, original artists who need faster access to our ecosystem.
This is exactly where the open communication channel is important. We will ask for all this proof during judgement, which is the whole point of being able to communicate with applicants.