Proof Of Brain Algo Vs Btcmyk Auto Curation System
In this video the presenter explains and compares two content‑curation reward models for cryptocurrency networks. First, the Proof of Brain (PoB) model is described as a human‑participation system that tokenizes community voting to reward content creators, using delegated proof‑of‑stake to elect witnesses. The speaker outlines PoB’s advantages—manual curation, community engagement, lower energy use—and its drawbacks: influence becomes weighted toward large token holders, decisions are centralized, manual curators have limited reach, and reward allocation can be subjective and uneven. The discussion then shifts to the BitcoinMYK (also referred to as BitcoinNYK) automated curation system, which operates on the SCOT protocol and a freemium service model. The system assigns an “attention value” to every user action (uploading photos, visiting pages, transferring money, etc.) and automatically distributes rewards based on average market‑derived values, ensuring that all activity is compensated even if content is never viewed. It also allows manual up‑voting, creating a hybrid of automatic and manual curation. The presenter critiques the closed‑source nature of the BitcoinMYK curation code, comparing it to the Pi Network and Ripple/XRP, and argues that decentralization does not require the code to be publicly owned; token ownership and network usage provide decentralization. Finally, the speaker concludes that BitcoinMYK’s hybrid, attention‑value‑driven, automated system is superior to Proof of Brain, inviting viewers to try it and share their opinions.
Chapters
Welcome back to the channel. I hope you're having a great day. So today we're going to have an interesting conversation about, um, the proof of brand algorithm versus the, uh, the new curation, the new automated curation system that the BitcoinNYK project has developed. We're going to talk a little bit about the pros and the cons of um, so it should be interesting. But first, let's try to understand what Proof of Brain, what the Proof of Brain algorithm is. And I'm going to give you pretty much what the blue paper description of it was, uh, but, you know, kind of my own words. And that is, uh, that the Proof of Brain model is basically a human participation model. That tokenizes the community. Um, in other words, this is a way to reward the, the community, uh, using their brain power to determine the value, uh, of content, and which the idea is to then distribute the cryptocurrency throughout the network. Um, now of course by that happening Instead of having the mining of a lot of computers and, uh, servers like you have with Bitcoin, right, having a lot of data mining centers, you're going to have more of the human participation. So you have less expenditure of energy in a sense, right? And, uh, you know, before I get into the cons of it, I want to stick with the roles. We'll try to do it in order. So proof, proof of work, the idea of it is that way, and it's executed through this voting system, right? There's this voting system, and, um, the community determines the value of the, of the, of the content, right? Again, through their brain power. That's why the— hence the term proof of brain. Uh, let's talk about some of the good things about it. So as the community is determining the value, right, you're going to have what is known as manual curation. And we're talking about curation, we're talking about the value of this reward-based system, or what they call a rewards pool, and what goes out of that into determining the value of this content across this network. Um, now people are engaging with, with other members of the community with their content, with their posts, and that's the part that's the good thing, because maybe in that, this is allowing the community to determine the value of what the content is. Um, and that manual approach, it can be beneficial in many ways. Um, and so the community, they go, they go around and do that. And again, that's, that's better, some believe, than just burn a lot of electricity in the wind. They have, um, what's called delegated proof of stake, which is they elect the people who are going to actually run the system, mine the tokens, right? Basically keep the network, uh, secure enough. And they're voted in by the community as well. So they— so this, this small, smaller pool that this power is delegated to are elected, right, through somewhat of a democratic process. And we're going to talk a little bit about that as well. So it sounds pretty good so far. Uh, you can see that they're, they're determining certain values of the post, right? So that sounds great. What are the negatives to this then? What, what's the problem with Proof of Brain? Why is this something that seems to be excellent an idea isn't, uh, a foremost running, uh, uh, or premier algorithm, right, that could solve all the environmental problems, waste of energy problems, and many other things. Well, there are some things we left out on the negatives of Proof of Brain, and that is in the idea of the proof of, of the brain part. The system is basically making the judgments of those with more money brainpower more important. You know, as to say, if you, if you have a bigger stake in this platform, then your opinion about the content, your evaluation of the content and the value that you hand over to it is determinable now by not a pool of people, but it's beginning to become more centralized into the idea or the subjective idea of one person over another. And I think we can see many issues with that. That's like me saying, you know, my opinion is the same as yours, but no, my opinion is a little bit more equal, is a little bit more important than yours, right? Carries a little bit more weight than yours. So by that definition, my opinion is greater than your opinion. And of course we could see many problems with that. Besides that though, the people who are curating this network, the people with the most influence and the most power are operating in a limited scope through manual curation. Which means that they simply can't reach everybody across the network. Now, some of the problems are when you have, uh, comparable content, which means there's a lot of good people producing a lot of good content out there. What can happen, and what likely happens, is somebody looks up there and their post, uh, is about as good as, uh, somebody else's post, but one post gets more money over the other because there's no competitive pricing. As to say, uh, if one of these, uh, high-staked curators come across you, they can give you more money. Um, now some people might not have a problem with that per se, um, But that moves on to not just the content itself, but the entire decisions made over the network itself, right? So in a model that strives to be decentralized, you can kind of see where the people who are elected to secure the network and to mine the network, what they known as witnesses, are gonna be more determinable by the people with the most stake. It's almost like a political system where you, where every year you just kind of go, the person who has the most money gets to choose who's the president. And unfortunately, some believe our political systems do work a lot like that now, but we see that as a problem and not a solution. And, uh, systems that are purposely designed like this, uh, that come across what could be huge problems. I think some of us feel they ought to see it as a problem as well. So that's another negative, that although they have manual curation, that a lot of people aren't going to be reached. Um, so a lot of people have used these systems. They, they know a lot of problems with Proof of Brain, and they know a lot of the, the good things that happen with Proof of Brain. But the purpose of this, this video is to kind of come up with a verdict of Is Proof of Brain better than the new BitcoinMYK curation system? So let's now look at the BitcoinMYK new auto-curation system and let's discuss that a little bit real quick. All right, here on the BitcoinMYK site, and BitcoinMYK features our automatic curation system. So let's explain what that means right quick here. So different from proof of brain, what's happening here is this is an algorithm that is basically determining who receives what, but it's all automated through the system. So it's not a person who's making— it's not a manual curation. Uh, but it is a manual— it's both manual and automatic. But let's, let's go over the pros and then we'll try to isolate some of the cons here. So the BitcoinNYK automated curation system means that an AI is doing all this, right? There is a computer program doing it. Now what makes it a little bit more unique than what you get on Proof of Brain is that From what I can understand, Proof of Brain, the upvote system and the reward system, right? It is a very specific system where the curator can select different varying amounts for that particular, uh, uh, you know, object that's being upvoted on, voted on. Here's where the, the, the BitcoinNYK automated curators is a little bit different. So on the platform, there are several things you can do. There are many things you can do. You can create groups, you can add friends, you can visit web pages, you can, um, basically, um, uh, transfer, uh, money, uh, to other people. The, the, the thing about it is that for Every task you do on the BitcoinMYK site, there is a reward for that particular task, right? For everything that you do, it's almost nothing you can do that you won't be or receive a reward for. And that is because it's mostly based on attention value, right? So The reason that's a good thing, because nobody gets left out, right? So whereas like with Proof of Brain, in most cases, if a person didn't come across your content, they didn't know it was there, you didn't get rewarded for it. With this, there is a reward for what's determined to be attention value, the time and energy you invest in something. Uh, even though the system isn't able to read through your post per se and say, oh, this is a good post or a bad post. It can determine that there's a certain amount of attention value going over to that particular thing. And it takes into account, uh, basically data that has been used to determine the value of other actions on websites. And it's all combined into this algorithm. So that's very interesting. So just for example, and I just give you a quick example of what I mean, let's say that if you upload photos, right, you upload a photo on your site, And the average reward for uploading a photo to bring more value to a webpage or website or something like that, let's say it's a variable X. Let's just say it's, uh, we're just making up numbers here just to give an idea how it works. But let's just say for every time a person uploads a photo, it's worth $5, right? On a social media site, you just, you know, We can kind of determine on average what the value is per social media user and spread that across the algo and it'll go, okay, well you did this, we're going to reward you such and such for this. So I'll give you $5 when you upload a photo, I'm going to give you $2 when you visit a webpage. And that's how it works, right? It's determining what you do by what you do. It knows when you're going to visit a page, It, even though it can't read a post and determine the value of that post, it can determine the attention value of what like ideas or, or, or average, on average people value gets transmitted, transferred in those instances. So it's kind of interesting, very interesting. Now that's one good thing about it because that means that even if a person on your network has done something of value. Maybe it took them a week to, to write a post, but the post was never seen. With our system, it would know that they posted and it would still reward them something, right? So they wouldn't be overlooked completely. Now the other good part about it is, in addition to that, similar to the Proof of Brain system, you're still able to upvote manually. So it has— so that— so just because it's an automated system doesn't mean you can't curate manually. You can actually do both. So the community can curate both, and the auto curation is on to take over when people can't. So those obviously are very, very positive things for the system. Um, I think in addition to that, uh, every time your new people come in, they're rewarded as well. So every time a new account comes in, so you get the basic idea, you're being rewarded for everything you do. You're not being overlooked. Now, comparison to Proof of Brain, where some might try to, uh, argue, well, you know, Uh, it's better if a person looks at a post and things like that. That is true, and, and you can do that with our system as well. But where the shortcoming is on Proof of Brain is the amount that's paid is determinable by people who hold the most stake. And the reason that's a problem is because the— it's quite subjective to determine the value of these posts, especially when the degree of people who can make certain decisions in the, the rewards pool are a minority system, which means you're not getting a full amount of data on how much the value of something really should be. So this is just a— that's just a, a, a long way of saying, uh, that how they are determining the value of these posts is probably not accurate And probably not a good idea because you're having a lot less people to make a what would be a more market-informed decision, if you understand what I mean. Whereas with this system, it's already kind of taken an average of what the average post is going to pay and kind of spread across the network. And then if as people come along and manually curate it, they can then make the terminal guesses, subjective guesses on the value, but we can never get a really accurate value. So a lot of times what the proof of brand model suggests is it goes back to, uh, this is subjective, uh, this is about, uh, attention value, but then that's no different than what our system does, right? And so based on that, the BitcoinNYK curation system I would have to determine is far superior than Proof of Brain, uh, all the way up to that part. Now here's the negatives, and let's get into that. We had a developer come in our, um, have a conversation. I had a conversation with a developer and he wanted to see the code. He wanted to inspect it. He wanted to be open source. Now what you have to understand is the BitcoinNYK project works on the SCOT, uh, protocol, right? Which is basically like tokenization on the Steam or Hive blockchain, right? It's kind of like Ethereum ERC-20 tokens. That's for the Steam and Hive blockchain. Okay, um, part of your smart media token idea. So, uh, that's what the BitcoinMYK project is mostly of. You can expect the code on how SCOT tokens work. But what they wanted was the curation code, right? So they can clone it so it could be open source, so they can make sure that it's fair. And I understand that, but here's where I would kind of draw the line with that, with my developer and coder friends. Uh, a lot of the narrative about what's fair in cryptocurrency has come about mostly because the cryptocurrencies are being sold and purchased on the open market but the project itself is needing to sell it to pay for the networks, right? This doesn't occur in the BitcoinMYK project. And, uh, what happens is, uh, we run totally on what's known as a freemium service model. A freemium service model means that this network runs without needing a person to pay for a cryptocurrency to secure the network. Miners aren't needed because it piggybacks off of existing chains, right? And creates a type of universal bridge cryptocurrency. But the other part I would suggest to you is that one of the largest networks, the Pi Network, uh, nobody is allowed— has been allowed to see the code on the Pi Network. And that was developed by these Stanford, uh, professors. And there, there are some proprietary reasons why some projects won't allow you to do that. So the one big mistake that I think developers and coders are making uh, in this, um, in this space is they're assuming that every project needs to have open source code so they have transparency and trust, which I agree with. But what you have to understand is that, um, the BitcoinNYK curation system, the automated curate system, is part of a vendor called BitcoinNYK.com. Now, you— the understanding is BitcoinNYK.com The entity is different from the BitcoinMYK token, right? It's kind of similar to XRP and Ripple. XRP is the token, Ripple is a company that owns about 60% of, uh, uh, the XRP coin. Now we don't have that problem with BitcoinMYK.com. We don't own 60% of the BitcoinMYK token. In fact, many investors earn a great— own a great deal more of it than we do. But BitcoinMYK is an entity. It is not a public entity, right, in that sense, and that it has its own operations and it has its own information and products that belong to BitcoinMYK.com. And so that is not something that is shared with the general public. Although because of the freemium service we want— we run on and the automated, uh, curation system, we strive to be the most decentralized cryptocurrency out there, sending cryptocurrency at high speeds to many users at a time. And ultimately, we believe that's going to be the most important part of decentralization— decentralizing the network by the cryptocurrency itself, because that code The token is not just a token, it is the actual code as well. And if you hold it, that's what decentralized the network. I think the problem with a lot of developers and tech people who have these very, uh, tenant-based codes, right? They think that everything has to work exactly like they developed it and that it all has to be open source, open code for it to be decentralized, which I don't think is true at all. I think you have a decentralized network, uh, without, um, uh, having, uh, the code necessarily owned by everybody on the network per se. It's kind of similar to Ripple. Again, I'll use Ripple's example, right? A lot of people would say XRP is decentralized or pretty close to it, but they would also conclude that they don't have anything to do with Ripple. I think it's important to understand that BitcoinNYK.com doesn't have anything to do with the BitcoinNYK token per se, uh, directly. However, uh, it is still, uh, the biggest vendor to the BitcoinNYK token as far as acceptance and use. And as long as it remains that way, uh, the, uh, the token is going to be moving throughout that network. And I think that's the most important part. Um, but that's also the con to the automated system, that you're going to have developers want to come in, want to clone the system, and so on and so forth. And, uh, that's not something that BitcoinMYK.com is allowing, much like the Pi Network is not allowing, uh, to, uh, to, uh, uh, you know, to basically, um take a look at the source code, right? Open up source code. But other than that, as far as, um, this great distribution, I, I think that the Bitcoin MYK project is, is, is, is on the path of becoming the most decentralized, the most widely distributed, uh, cryptocurrency of them all because of this type of system. And I, and I think that I have to conclude, especially in the areas of the most important things, that this is better than the Proof of Brain network, right? I would have to walk away with that. But give me your thoughts on it. What do you think about that? Do you think that, uh, uh, this system, uh, is better than the Proof of Brain algorithm? If you haven't tried it yet, um, uh, we invite you to give it a try and see if you like it. Uh, and come back and let us know what you thought, and maybe we can get a poll going and find out what you guys think is the best system. But that's all I want to say in this video. If you like content like this, don't forget to like, subscribe. Until next time, as always, take care.
More from Michael
UBI - CIA Agent Explains Why Americans Will Never Get Universal Basic Income?
