NFT Information Verification Using Two-Step Blockchain Verdicts

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing solutions for detecting and verifying false or misleading information lack neutrality and fairness, are susceptible to manipulation, and suffer from high costs and centralization issues, particularly in DAO-based systems.

Innovation Solution

A decentralized system using Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and Smart-contracts ensures equal voting power per person through an off-chain oracle mechanism, implementing a two-step verification process to enhance fairness and transparency, while reducing costs and preventing manipulation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If on-chain voting methods are used in DAO, then security and decentralization are improved, but cost increases significantly due to gas fees

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesecurityVSAvoidcost
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the voting process into two distinct phases: an off-chain voting phase where participants cast votes without incurring gas fees, and an on-chain recording phase where only the final aggregated result is written to the blockchain. This segmentation allows the system to benefit from the security of on-chain operations while avoiding the high costs of frequent on-chain transactions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary mechanism (off-chain voting infrastructure with cryptographic verification) that mediates between the need for secure on-chain recording and the desire to minimize costs. Votes are cast off-chain with cryptographic signatures, and only the aggregated result is committed to the blockchain, acting as a cost-effective intermediary layer.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If token-based voting power distribution is implemented, then simplicity is improved, but fairness deteriorates as wealthy participants dominate governance

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesimplicityVSAvoidfairness
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements asymmetric voting power distribution where different participant types (developers, validators, community members) are assigned different weights based on their contribution and role in the ecosystem, rather than treating all token holders equally. This asymmetric approach balances simplicity with fairness by giving appropriate weight to different stakeholders.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #4Asymmetry

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies local quality by assigning different voting weights to different types of participants based on their specific roles and contributions. Instead of a uniform voting system, each participant type receives voting power localized to their contribution level, ensuring fairness while maintaining operational simplicity through role-based differentiation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Productivity

If automatic detection algorithms are used, then detection efficiency is improved, but reliability deteriorates as algorithms can be manipulated and lack neutrality

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection efficiencyVSAvoidneutrality
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent merges automatic detection algorithms with human expert verification in a hybrid system. Automated algorithms perform initial screening and analysis at scale, while human experts review and validate critical cases through the DAO voting mechanism. This combination maintains high detection efficiency while ensuring neutrality through decentralized human judgment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements a feedback loop where DAO voting results are used to continuously refine and improve the automatic detection algorithms. The decentralized verification process provides feedback on algorithm performance and bias, allowing the system to learn and adapt while maintaining neutrality through community oversight.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

4Reliability

If verification results are kept on the solution's portal only, then control is improved, but information propagation deteriorates as users consuming content from original portals are not reached

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovecontrolVSAvoidinformation propagation
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent makes the verification system universal by creating verification results that can be consumed across multiple platforms and portals. The DAO-verified information is published in a standardized format that can be integrated into any content platform, allowing verification results to propagate widely while maintaining the original portal's control over its content.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentEP4579472A1Method, system and computer program for verifying false or misleading information
Publication Date: 2025.07.02 TELEFÓNICA INNOVACIÓN DIGITAL SL
  • EP4579472A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4579472A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4579472A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The present invention discloses a method, system and computer program for verifying false or misleading information. The method comprises creating a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) and associating it to one or more information records to be verified; distributing the NFT and the record(s) to computing nodes that implement a decentralised blockchain; establishing, for a set of computing nodes of a first type, a first verdict of whether said record(s) include(s) false or misleading information; establishing, for a set of computing nodes of a second type, a second verdict of whether the record(s) include(s) false or misleading information; and adding the first verdict and the second verdict. If the result of the second verdict coincides with the first verdict, the final verdict is set and published, and if the result of the second verdict is different from the first verdict, one or more computing devices that are external to the decentralised blockchain are notified of a conflict.