Melding the Worlds of Conspiracy Theory, Blockchain, and Collective Intelligence

Stephen Francis

Conspiracy theorists, a pejorative contrived by the elite, have the same challenge that all those who engage in investigative journalism have, that being, how to gain the maximum credibility of their work. Presenting the best objective evidence is probably the best tactic, but something that could really bolster this effort, especially in this age of ‘fake news’ and disingenuous ‘fact-checking’, is now added to the mix.


Enter Collective Intelligence (CI). It has a nearly 150-year history (Wikipedia) in aiding credibility to any technical effort and is ‘scientific’, that overused but important word. Add blockchain technology, which has gained international acceptance now, and you have a great combination of forces to ensure credibility.



Inline image


ConspiracyCoin (CC) is, as far as I’m aware, is the first-ever attempt to create a software program that accomplishes the goal of melding these three entities. Its main premise is to aggregate and evaluate theorists. It’s a community platform really, where theorists can exchange ideas (through a social media component), and then (numerically) judge each other’s work. Algorithms are incorporated to aid in this evaluation process allowing the ‘best’ to rise to the top of reports (blockchain explorer) if so desired. The program refers to theorists as ‘experts’. The technology resides on cloud servers where multiple nodes can accomplish the distributed nature of, in this case, a private permissioned blockchain (no mining or gas). The private and permissioned aspect means that members and their data can be deleted while maintaining data integrity. Many corporations use this form of blockchain.


At the end of this article, I’ll tackle the treatment of specific ‘conspiracy theories, including the Plandemic, The Great Reset, JFK Assassination, 9-11 Truth al.
Inline image


Experts and Public Rate Experts

The most important sentence describing CC is “Experts and Public Rate Experts”. It takes a bit to absorb the meaning of this phrase and in terms of programming code is also somewhat tangled, but it is probably the most fundamental concept of the site. The word Public refers to the general public but membership is required. An expert is defined as anyone who believes that they can be substantially judged on that status. Obviously, a low rating would discourage this assertion.


One of the intriguing aspects of CC is that it, for a lack of a better term, forces members to really look at alternatives to their own work or their habitual reference to just a few sources. Crypto rewards aid in this encouragement, but ultimately it has to occur, which is not a bad thing. In the process, members see what materials contributed to the top-ranked expert’s work that put them in that position. They may then incorporate those materials in their work (properly credited) and the result is an ever-increasing quality of collective research. It’s an adaptation of the scientific method where theories are changed according to new information.


CC also has a feature named Website Proxy Expert (WPE). What is this? Ultimately users of CC rate the websites of the experts. It is assumed that large well-established websites such as The Gateway Pundit, Infowars, or will not be immediately aware of CC. This is where WPE comes into play. Experts are allowed to be proxies for these websites as long as they don’t use the official logo and credit their work.


It also has a ‘Public’ element where non-experts can voice their opinion through social media and ranking activity. The program tracks individual expert ratings which can be presented in sorted lists. Expert’s and Public lists can be compared, often with surprising results.


Why evaluate theorists instead of their theories?


Why evaluate theorists instead of their theories? It comes down to a numbers game really and can be reduced to a simple line of thinking. There are millions the theories, almost to the point of there being a theory attached to every person out there. Obviously, this becomes untenable very quickly trying to categorize and manage. The reality exists that there are a relatively small amount of ‘experts’ in any particular conspiracy, possibly only hundreds even on a national scale. This is a manageable number of quality experts compared to the number of theories out there.


In the case of CC, experts will undoubtedly have to have a website in order to be able to showcase their beliefs. The drill-down process of CC eventually refers to that website. There is a mechanism for experts to be proxy agents for large national websites that are unaware of CC.


Theory Categorization


Now the next problem is that there are thousands of different categories of theories and the inevitable subcategories of each discipline. That leads to filtering and focusing. Just like elections have a geographic hierarchy (national, state, county al), so does CC. Upon sign-up, the expert (not public) will declare what areas of a particular conspiracy they focus on. These declarations depend on a number (6) of hard-coded subcategories (more below), that the expert has no immediate input on their creation. These subcategories also become search criteria when the public wants to find experts in a particular subcategory. If the member doesn’t like the hard-coded questions, they can try other versions of the program (explained below)


Domain name segregation


The differentiation of theories is also segregated by the use of the technology of domain names. For example, JFK theorists would find their version of the program in the domain: or …etc.  The scope of this system can be wide or narrow or Experts can suggest theory categories and subcategories that may be incorporated into new versions of the program. Ultimately, all decisions about the design of the software entail database structure issues. This is one of those.


Collective Intelligence


Inline image


CI has been around since 1875. The below image of a jar of jelly beans may seem simplistic but in reality, it points to a very sophisticated subject.  See Stanford. In this Stanford study, they analyze the ability of visual technology to count the number of beans in the jar, not dissimilar to a human doing the same thing. The results are the same. The collective effort results in a relatively tight pattern where the correct answer nearly matches the actual number of beans. Extrapolating this to theory analysis has proven effective.


CI is easily incorporated into the CC program. All the data collected from rating activity is collected in a MongoDB and BigchainDB databases. These products are specifically designed to work with blockchains. Traditional relational databases like MySQL are not as well-suited. CI is only possible with sophisticated database products for projects of this scale.


The database schema can be very complicated.
Inline image


Enough tech stuff. Now I will tackle the politics of CC.

The Politics of ConspiracyCoin


The biggest filtering aspect of CC involves what is called variable differentiation and it’s also connected to the function of subcategories to the theory of the particular version of CC … ( … etc). In plain English, this means that the hard-coded subcategories of a theory (variables like Fauci lies, lab leak, depopulation agenda, 5G implications …et al in the version) are hardcoded into the version.


When the expert signs up, he or she has to either agree or disagree (refuse) this subcategory characterization. This is the filtering. If they refuse to agree then they are effectively eliminated from the program. This may seem unscientific or political, but choices have to be made in order to keep garbage out of the database. If disagreeing members check off on these categories, they will eventually get bad ratings and will go nowhere.


A broad example of this categorization could be the following: … the six subcategories could be City of London, Israeli intelligence agencies, the Military-Industrial Complex,  the Medical Industrial Complex, the Vatican, and Communism. A narrow interpretation could be any of these single components. A CC member will probably settle on actually using a small number of versions. Ultimately, it would mimic a ‘poll of polls’ situation, that often has very accurate results. Filtering and focusing mechanisms are tricky and the database programming is even trickier.


Those subcategories are fundamental aspects of the program. There is a mechanism for all members to suggest versions and their categories. It takes a lot of research and effort to get them right. It is desired that they somewhat match the consensus of the conspiracy community. This is all unavoidable bias.


Recent events prove that America (and the world) have been under direct attack by the globalist elite (communist-like), which begs the question, who belongs to that elite layer. This could be another version of CC that would specifically target countries and entities such as the UK City of London, Mossad, the MIC, Vatican, China et al.


Please follow and like us: