Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

The Internet of Value: Integrating Blockchain and Lightning Network Micropayments for Knowledge Markets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A one-penny bounty may be enough to raise answer quality on Q&A sites.

desk verdict Sub-$2 Q&A bounty survey adds new data, but the claim that £0.01 'significantly' boosts effort is unsupported by the reported statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19384 v1 pith:CD5G6NQB submitted 2024-12-26 cs.CY cs.CEcs.ET

Ellis Solaiman , Jorge Robins This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.CEcs.ET
keywords MicropaymentsLightningNetworkBlockchainQ&AwebsitesKnowledgemarketsIncentivesInternetofValueBounties
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that Lightning Network micropayments can turn Q&A sites into knowledge markets without minimum payment barriers. It reports a survey finding that even a £0.01 bounty is enough to make respondents say they would put significantly more effort into getting their answer accepted. The authors see this as evidence that removing the friction and cost of tiny payments could meaningfully change online behaviour, offering an alternative to advertising and data collection. They recommend integrating Lightning Network wallets and bounties into service-oriented platforms.

What carries the argument

Two components carry the argument. The first is the Lightning Network, a layer-2 payment channel network on Bitcoin that makes near-zero-fee, near-instant transfers of fractions of a penny technically feasible. The second is a ten-question survey, built around a five-point Likert-scale question asking whether bounties of £0.001, £0.01, £0.10, £1, and £10 would incentivise more effort on an accepted answer; the pattern of median responses across those bounty levels is the empirical core of the paper.

What would settle it

A field experiment in which a Q&A platform lets users post real £0.01 bounties and compares accepted-answer effort, length, and acceptance rate against a no-bounty control would settle it; if sub-cent bounties produce no measurable difference in effort or quality, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that minimal monetary incentives, as low as £0.01, significantly encourage users to invest more effort in producing accepted answers. In a 32-participant survey, agreement with the statement that a £0.01 bounty would increase effort was at the median 'agree' level, while £0.001 produced a neutral response; £1 and £10 produced strong agreement. The authors take this as filling the gap below the $2 minimum studied in earlier Google Answers research, and as evidence that Lightning Network-based micropayments can create viable knowledge markets below conventional payment thresholds.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on respondents' self-reported Likert-scale intentions matching what they would actually do when spending their own money.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Q&A platforms could offer bounties below £1, including sub-cent amounts, without losing user motivation.
  • Users who previously could not afford or justify paying for answers could participate, widening access to expertise.
  • Revenue models could shift from advertising and data harvesting to direct, small user payments.
  • Micropayment incentives could complement or surpass reputation systems in encouraging fast, high-quality answers.
  • Accumulated micropayments could become meaningful income in lower-income regions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The survey's self-reported intentions may overstate real behaviour; a field experiment with real funds would test whether £0.01 bounties actually change answer quality and speed.
  • The £0.01 threshold is likely context-dependent: domains with complex questions or users with different purchasing power may require different minimum incentives.
  • Pairing LN micropayments with stablecoins or local currency pegs could remove cryptocurrency volatility as a barrier to user uptake.
  • If sub-cent incentives prove effective, the same mechanism could extend beyond Q&A to paid content, microtasks, and data marketplaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes integrating Lightning Network (LN)-based micropayments into Q&A platforms to create a "knowledge market" free of minimum payment thresholds. It reviews background on smart contracts, blockchain, and prior Q&A incentive studies, then reports a questionnaire survey of 32 blockchain-interested users that asks how varying bounty levels (from £0.001 to £10) affect self-reported willingness to ask, answer, and exert effort. The central claim, stated in the abstract and Section 3.2, is that even £0.01 significantly encourages higher-quality effort in responses. The paper concludes with recommendations for LN-based micropayment strategies and lists ten future research directions.

Significance. If supported, the paper would fill a genuinely identified gap in the empirical literature on knowledge-market incentives below the $2 level and would inform practical design of LN-based micropayment systems. The authors provide a complete questionnaire instrument, transparent descriptive statistics, and explicitly flag the self-report limitation in their conclusions. However, the central empirical claim is currently asserted from descriptive summaries without inferential statistical support, and there is an internal inconsistency in the interpretation of Table 2. These issues must be addressed before the contribution can be considered reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 2] The central claim that a £0.01 bounty "significantly" encourages effort is not supported by any inferential statistics. The manuscript reports only medians and standard deviations; no hypothesis tests, confidence intervals, or effect sizes are provided. Moreover, the medians for £0.001 and £0.01 are both 4, so the data do not establish a distinctive threshold at £0.01. The authors should add appropriate pairwise comparisons (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank tests against the £0 baseline and across bounty levels), report effect sizes with confidence intervals, and revise the abstract and Section 3.2 wording accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 2] The text says there is "a fairly neutral opinion at the £0.001 level," but Table 2 reports a median of 4 (agree) for that bounty, which is internally inconsistent. This contradiction directly affects the interpretation of the gradient of responses and must be resolved: either the table, the verbal description, or the analytical conclusion needs correction, and the claimed threshold at £0.01 must be re-established from consistent data.
  3. [Section 3.1, Q10 and Conclusions] The survey measures self-reported intentions, not actual behavior, as the Conclusions appropriately acknowledge. Yet the abstract and Conclusions state that minimal payments "encourage higher quality and effort," which is a behavioral claim. The central finding should be limited to self-reported willingness to exert effort, or the paper should explicitly label the results as attitudinal and refrain from causal wording, unless a behavioral experiment or field study is added.
  4. [Section 3.2] The sample of 32 respondents recruited from student and blockchain-focused Discord and Slack channels is small and non-random, and the claims about gender differences and the 90.6% preference for micropayments are presented without any measure of uncertainty. The paper should temper generalizations, add appropriate caveats about the convenience sample, or present these results as exploratory pilot findings rather than as generalizable evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figure 8] The text says "Figure 8 displays the most pertinent question," but Figure 8 appears after several other figures and is not explicitly referenced in the running text as a question screenshot; please clarify the placement and add a reference to the actual question wording.
  2. [Section 1] The paper defines micropayments as "any sum below £1.00" but later discusses payments "below £0.01" and "fractions of a penny"; please make the definition consistent with the range of amounts tested.
  3. [Section 2.1, Reference [11]] The statement "As of August 2024, LN transactions incurred remarkably low fees, making it feasible to send fractions of a penny" is cited to [11], a paper about payment channel lifecycle, not fee levels; please provide a more direct citation for the fee claim.
  4. [Section 3.2, Figure 10] The "superimposed average score" in Figure 10 is not defined in the text or caption; please explain what the superimposed score represents and how it relates to the Likert scale.
  5. [Section 3.2] The statements about gender differences in preferences for micropayments versus tips are made without any statistical comparison; please either add appropriate tests or clearly label these as exploratory observations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the survey-based central claim rests on new primary data, and the many background self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that even a £0.01 bounty can motivate users to put more effort into having an answer accepted—comes from a newly collected 32-response Likert survey (Section 3.1 and Table 2), not from fitting a parameter, reusing a prior model, or importing an author-specific uniqueness theorem. The questionnaire is described as designed to fill the literature gap below the $2 level, and the results are reported as descriptive statistics; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Lightning Network feasibility statements are attributed to external sources ([1], [10], [11], [45]) and are not derived from the authors' own prior work. The background section contains many self-citations (e.g., [14]–[18], [34]–[36]) relating to smart contracts, but these are contextual and not load-bearing for the survey conclusion. The conclusion itself acknowledges a limitation: 'Users' self-reported intentions may not fully translate into consistent behaviour when actually spending their funds.' That is a caveat about evidence quality, not a circular step. The abstract's use of 'significantly' is not supported by inferential statistics, but statistical overstatement is a correctness risk, not circularity. No equation, definition, or derivation chain in the paper reduces its output to its input. Hence the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted model parameters. Its central claim relies on three domain assumptions: self-report validity, sample representativeness, and Lightning Network technical viability.

free parameters (1)
  • Bounty levels tested = £0.001, £0.01, £0.10, £1, £10
    Hand-chosen survey thresholds; the claim that £0.01 is a point of significance depends on these levels, but no model fitting or optimization was performed.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert responses are valid proxies for actual incentivized effort and quality.
    The central claim rests on survey self-reports. The authors acknowledge in the Conclusions that intentions may not translate to behavior.
  • domain assumption Respondents recruited from student and blockchain-focused channels are representative of Q&A knowledge market users.
    Distribution via Discord and Slack channels biases the sample; no comparison to general Q&A users or weighting is provided.
  • domain assumption Lightning Network enables frictionless, near-zero-cost micropayments at scales below £0.01.
    Taken from cited literature such as Poon and Dryja, Decker and Wattenhofer, and Burchert et al.; not independently measured in this study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Internet of Value: Integrating Blockchain and Lightning Network Micropayments for Knowledge Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CD5G6NQB

@misc{pith2026241219384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Internet of Value: Integrating Blockchain and Lightning Network Micropayments for Knowledge Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CD5G6NQB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19384}
}
abstract

Q&A websites rely on user-generated responses, with incentives such as reputation scores or monetary rewards often offered. While some users may find it intrinsically rewarding to assist others, studies indicate that payment can improve the quality and speed of answers. However, traditional payment processors impose minimum thresholds that many Q&A inquiries fall below. The introduction of Bitcoin enabled direct digital value transfer, yet frequent micropayments remain challenging. Recent advancements like the Lightning Network now allow frictionless micropayments by reducing costs and minimising reliance on intermediaries. This development fosters an "Internet of Value," where transferring even small amounts of money is as simple as sharing data. This study investigates integrating Lightning Network-based micropayment strategies into Q&A platforms, aiming to create a knowledge market free of minimum payment barriers. A survey was conducted to address the gap below the $2 payment level identified in prior research. Responses confirmed that incentives for asking and answering weaken as payments decrease. Findings reveal even minimal payments, such as {\pounds}0.01, significantly encourage higher quality and effort in responses. The study recommends micropayment incentives for service-oriented applications, particularly Q&A platforms. By leveraging the Lightning Network to remove barriers, a more open marketplace can emerge, improving engagement and outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm if users follow through on reported intentions when spending funds.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    White Paper, https://lightning.network/lightning-network- paper.pdf [Online; accessed 2024-12-25] (2016)

    Poon, J., Dryja, T .: The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable OffChain Instant Payments. White Paper, https://lightning.network/lightning-network- paper.pdf [Online; accessed 2024-12-25] (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Simon and Schuster, (2018)

    Gilder, G.: Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy. Simon and Schuster, (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference, pp

    Malloy, M., McNamara, M., Cahn, A., Barford, P .: Ad blockers: Global prevalence and impact. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference, pp. 119–125 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development 7, 264–289 (2016)

    Carrillo, F.: Knowledge markets: A typology and an overview. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development 7, 264–289 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    1, (1998)

    Davenport, T ., Prusak, L.: Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know vol. 1, (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Hodge, (1949)

    Mises, L.V.: Human Action A Treatise on Economics. Hodge, (1949)

    work page 1949

  7. [7]

    Cryptography Mailing list at https://metzdowd.com (2008)

    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A peer -to-peer electronic cash system. Cryptography Mailing list at https://metzdowd.com (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    -J.: Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirement

    Massias, H., Avila, X.S., Quisquater, J. -J.: Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirement. In: the 20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux (1999) The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks

    work page 1999

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    In: 1980 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp

    Merkle, R.C.: Protocols for public key cryptosystems. In: 1980 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 122–134 (1980)

    1980

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems (SSS), pp

    Decker, C., Wattenhofer, R.: A Fast and Scalable Payment Network with Bitcoin Duplex Micropayment Channels. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems (SSS), pp. 1–15 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15930

    Gr¨otschla, F., Heimbach, L., Richner, S., Wattenhofer, R.: On the Lifecycle of a Lightning Network Payment Channel. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15930. arXiv:2409.15930 [cs.DC] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    In: Clarendon, (1963)

    Nicholas, B.: An introduction to roman law. In: Clarendon, (1963)

    1963

  5. [13]

    First Monday 2(9) (1997)

    Szabo, N.: Smart contracts: Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday 2(9) (1997)

    1997

  6. [14]

    In: IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce (CEC 2003) (2003)

    Molina–Jimenez, C., Shrivastava, S., Solaiman, E., Warne, J.: Contract representation for run -time monitoring and enforcement. In: IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce (CEC 2003) (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3(2), 108–125 (2004)

    Molina–Jimenez, C., Shrivastava, S., Solaiman, E., Warne, J.: Run -time monitoring and enforcement of electronic contracts. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3(2), 108–125 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    In: Proc

    Solaiman, E., Molina –Jimenez, C., Shrivastava, S.: Model checking correctness properties of electronic contracts. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC’03), pp. 303–318. Springer, (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    In: Proc

    Solaiman, E., Sfyrakis, I., Molina –Jimenez, C.: A state aware model and architecture for the monitoring and enforcement of electronic contracts. In: Proc. IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI’2016) (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    In: 12th IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC) (2015)

    Solaiman, E., Sun, W., Molina -Jimenez, C.: A tool for the automatic verification of bpmn choreographies. In: 12th IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC) (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    5th ACM international conference on information and education innovations (2020) The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks

    Awaji, B., Solaiman, E., Albshri, A.: Blockchain-based applications in higher education: A systematic mapping study. 5th ACM international conference on information and education innovations (2020) The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks

    2020

  12. [20]

    5th ACM International Conference on Information and Education Innovations (2020)

    Awaji, B., Solaiman, E., Marshall, L.: Blockchain-based trusted achievement record system design. 5th ACM International Conference on Information and Education Innovations (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    In: ACM 5th International Conference on Information and Education Innovations (2020)

    Awaji, B., Solaiman, E., Marshall, L.: Investigating the requirements for building a blockchain -based achievement record system. In: ACM 5th International Conference on Information and Education Innovations (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    In: 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU (2022)

    Awaji, B., Solaiman, E.: Design implementation and evaluation of blockchain-based trusted achievement record system for students in higher education. In: 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Computers and Electrical Engineering (2019)

    Noor, A., Mitra, K., Solaiman, E., Souza, A., Jha, D., Demirbaga, U., Jayaraman, P ., Cacho, N., Ranjan, R.: Cyber-physical application monitoring across multiple clouds. Computers and Electrical Engineering (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    IT Professional IEEE (2016)

    Solaiman, E., Ranjan, R., Jayaraman, P .P ., Mitra, K.: Monitoring internet of things application ecosystems for failure. IT Professional IEEE (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    2018 IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (HPCS) (2018)

    Alqahtani, A., Li, Y., Patel, P ., Solaiman, E., Ranjan, R.: End-to-end service level agreement specification for iot applications. 2018 IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (HPCS) (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Software: Practice and Experience (2019)

    Alqahtani, A., Solaiman, E., Patel, P ., Dustdar, S., Ranjan, R.: Service level agreement specification for end -to-end iot application ecosystems. Software: Practice and Experience (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    In: 1st Workshop on Cyber -Physical Social Systems (CPSS) 2019] (2019)

    Alqahtani, A., Jha, D.N., Patel, P ., Solaiman, E., Ranjan, R.: Sla -aware approach for iot workflow activities placement based on collaboration between cloud and edge. In: 1st Workshop on Cyber -Physical Social Systems (CPSS) 2019] (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    IT Professional IEEE (2019)

    Alzubaidi, A., Solaiman, E., Patel, P ., Mitra, K.: Blockchain -based sla management in the context of iot. IT Professional IEEE (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Computers and Electrical Engineering (2020)

    Alzubaidi, A., Mitra, K., Patel, P ., Solaiman, E.: 2020 ieee international conference on smart internet of things (smartiot). Computers and Electrical Engineering (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    In: 2024 The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp

    Wilson, S., Adu-Duodu, K., Li, Y., Sham, R., Solaiman, E., Rana, O., Ranjan, R.: Verifiable querying framework for multi-blockchain applications. In: 2024 The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptoc...

    2024

  23. [31]

    IEEE Internet Computing 28(1), 70–80 (2024)

    Wilson, S., Adu-Duodu, K., Li, Y., Solaiman, E., Rana, O., Dustdar, S., Ranjan, R.: Data management challenges in blockchain -based applications. IEEE Internet Computing 28(1), 70–80 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Future Internet 16(4), 135 (2024)

    Wilson, S., Adu -Duodu, K., Li, Y., Sham, R., Almubarak, M., Wang, Y., Solaiman, E., Perera, C., Ranjan, R., Rana, O.: Blockchain -enabled provenance tracking for sustainable material reuse in construction supply chains. Future Internet 16(4), 135 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    In: 2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on e -Science (e - Science), pp

    Wilson, S., Adu-Duodu, K., Li, Y., Sham, R., Wang, Y., Solaiman, E., Perera, C., Ranjan, R., Rana, O.: Tracking material reuse across construction supply chains. In: 2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on e -Science (e - Science), pp. 1–4. IEEE, (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    IEEE 8th International Symposium on Cloud and Service Computing (SC2), (2018)

    Molina-Jimenez, C., Sfyrakis, I., Solaiman, E., Ng, I., Wong, M.W., Chun, A., Crowcroft, J.: Implementation of smart contracts using hybrid architectures with on -and off -blockchain components. IEEE 8th International Symposium on Cloud and Service Computing (SC2), (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Euro-Par 2018: European Conference on Parallel Processing, (2018)

    Molina-Jimenez, C., Solaiman, E., Sfyrakis, I., Ng, I., Crowcroft, J.: On and off- blockchain enforcement of smart contracts. Euro-Par 2018: European Conference on Parallel Processing, (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience (2021)

    Solaiman, E., Wike, T ., Sfyrakis, I.: Implementation and evaluation of smart contracts using a hybrid on-and off-blockchain architecture. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    IEEE 14th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC) (2018)

    Aldweesh, A., Alharby, M., Solaiman, E., van Moorsel, A.: Performance benchmarking of smart contracts to assess miner incentives in ethereum. IEEE 14th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC) (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    2022 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT) (2022)

    Albshri, A., Awaji, B., Solaiman, E.: Investigating the requirement of building blockchain simulator for iot applications. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT) (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    2022 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC) (2022) The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks

    Albshri, A., Alzubaidi, A., Awaji, B., Solaiman, E.: Blockchain simulators: a systematic mapping study. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC) (2022) The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks

    2022

  32. [40]

    Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications 12(1), 1–26 (2023)

    Albshri, A., Alzubaidi, A., Alharby, M., Awaji, B., Mitra, K., Solaiman, E.: A conceptual architecture for simulating blockchain -based iot ecosystems. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications 12(1), 1–26 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    In: 17th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC) (2024)

    Alsharidah, A., Jha, D.N., Wei, B., Solaiman, E., Ranjan, R.: Securefed: Blockchain-based defence for data poisoning attack in federated learning. In: 17th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC) (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    In: Managing Internet of Things Applications Across Edge and Cloud Data Centres

    Booth, A., Alqahtani, A., Solaiman, E.: Iot monitoring with blockchain: Generating smart contracts from service level agreements. In: Managing Internet of Things Applications Across Edge and Cloud Data Centres. IET, (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2023)

    Alzubaidi, A., Mitra, K., Solaiman, E.: A blockchain -based sla monitoring and compliance assessment for iot ecosystems. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT)

    Albshri, A., Alzubaidi, A., Solaiman, E.: A model -based machine learning approach for assessing the performance of blockchain applications. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT). IEEE, (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    In: Royal Society Open Science (2018)

    Burchert, C., Decker, C., Wattenhofer, R.: Scalable Funding of Bitcoin Micropayment Channel Networks. In: Royal Society Open Science (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    865–874 (2008)

    Harper, F., Raban, D., Rafaeli, S., Konstan, J.: Predictors of answer quality in online q&a sites, pp. 865–874 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Journal of Public Economic Theory 12, 641–664 (2010)

    Ho, T ., Chen, Y., Kim, Y.-M.: Knowledge market design: A field experiment at google answers. Journal of Public Economic Theory 12, 641–664 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    European Economic Review 46(4), 687–724 (2002)

    Fehr, E., Falk, A.: Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review 46(4), 687–724 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Economic Inquiry 50(2), 309–320 (2012)

    Edelman, B.: Earnings and ratings at google answers. Economic Inquiry 50(2), 309–320 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Empirical Software Engineering 23, 1– 42 (2018) The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks

    Wang, S., Chen, T .-H.P ., Hassan, A.E.: Understanding the factors for fast answers in technical q&a websites. Empirical Software Engineering 23, 1– 42 (2018) The Internet of Value (IoV) with Blockchain and Lightning Networks

    2018

  43. [51]

    Khoi, N., Casteleyn, S., Moradi, M., Pebesma, E.: Do monetary incentives influence users’ behavior in participatory sensing? Sensors 18(5), 14(2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    435–444 (2011)

    Musthag, M., Raij, A., Ganesan, D., Kumar, S., Shiffman, S.: Exploring micro - incentive strategies for participant compensation in high -burden studies, pp. 435–444 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    In: Financial Cryptography, pp

    Odlyzko, A.: The case against micropayments. In: Financial Cryptography, pp. 77–83. Springer, (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.