Part 1 – Introducing the Problem

The Overlooked Role of Decentralized Knowledge Sharing Platforms: Empowering the Shift Towards Collective Intelligence in the Blockchain Era

Part 1: The Critical Absence of Structured Collective Intelligence in Blockchain

At the core of every decentralized protocol lies a paradox: community is paramount, yet structured mechanisms for knowledge sharing remain conspicuously underdeveloped. Blockchain communities routinely face forks, protocol stagnation, and governance gridlock—not because answers are unavailable, but because institutional channels for synthesizing and disseminating collective insight don't exist. The foundational architecture of most chains is optimized for financial value transfer, not epistemic resilience.

This absence is not coincidental. The history of blockchain development privileged code over coordination. While core contributors to early Bitcoin and Ethereum releases fiercely debated implementation details on mailing lists and forums, those discussions were often fragmented, undocumented, and eventually buried. Resulting decisions were etched into immutable ledgers while the deliberation behind them decayed across discords and impromptu GitHub comments. The problem? Blockchain infrastructure has evolved. The way we formulate, refine, and transmit protocol-level knowledge has not.

More recent attempts to address this have focused on governance tooling and quadratic voting, not the underlying prerequisite: accessible, shared epistemic state. Technocratic governance frameworks presume knowledge symmetry among participants that often does not exist. Even high-participation DAOs routinely suffer from decision fatigue, shallow voting rationales, and cyclical debates. Without decentralized knowledge frameworks—auditable records of shared reasoning, citations, and counterpoints—governance becomes an exercise in noise amplification.

One would expect platforms like Arweave or IPFS to naturally fill this role, yet content discoverability in these decentralized systems is often no better than a raw data dump. In effect, we've rebuilt the Web without Wikipedia. Some projects like NODL hint at more structured information dissemination, treating data as a first-class on-chain economic object. But such approaches are still nascent and focused more on monetization than process transparency.

Meanwhile, billions are being allocated to DeFi, NFTs, and L1 scalability—all predicated on users making informed, trust-minimized decisions. But what is the mechanism to ensure those decisions are based on validated knowledge rather than memetic narratives or influencer heuristics? Without decentralized intelligence protocols, we widen the gap between data availability and actionable community wisdom.

This tension—between financial decentralization and epistemic centralization—doesn’t just reveal inefficiencies; it threatens the integrity of decentralized systems themselves. Addressing it requires rethinking not just how information is stored, but how it is curated, cited, updated, and collectively validated. And perhaps more importantly, whether blockchain-native protocols can evolve to embed collective intelligence as a primitive—just like consensus.

Part 2 – Exploring Potential Solutions

Emerging Tech to Unlock Collective Intelligence via Decentralized Knowledge Sharing

Decentralized knowledge platforms remain underdeveloped in Web3 partly because their foundational infrastructure is still nascent. However, several architectural advancements and theoretical constructs are beginning to signal a shift. These include incentivized knowledge graphs, peer-to-peer data availability layers, and crypto-economic models focused on epistemic integrity.

1. Tokenized Knowledge Graphs (TKGs)

Tokenized Knowledge Graphs are emerging as a method to structure decentralized factual data while creating economic incentives for curation and verification. These graphs rely on agents to contribute verified claims, allowing for community validation over time. Projects experimenting in this domain often intersect with oracle and semantic Web3 stacks.

Strengths: TKGs enable composable knowledge ecosystems. Mapping relationships between datasets can mirror neural structures of intelligence—the theoretical bedrock of collective wisdom.

Weaknesses: The reliance on correctness incentives risks gamification of truth if adversarial behavior isn't properly contained. Early implementations often struggle with subjectivity in claim verification, lacking robust epistemological standards.

2. Zero-Knowledge-Based Credentials

Zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) technologies facilitate reputation without compromising pseudonymity. By generating attestations about prior knowledge contributions or domain-specific expertise, users can interact in knowledge networks without doxxing themselves.

Strengths: Great for keeping contributors anonymous while still enabling trust. Platforms leveraging ZKPs could evolve into sybil-resistant learning environments.

Weaknesses: Opaque contribution systems may lead to non-transparent moderation. Moreover, ZKP systems can be resource-intensive, limiting real-time participation in large networks.

3. Data Availability Layers for Collaborative Content Hosting

Bandwidth limitations and latency have historically bottlenecked decentralization in collaborative environments. Protocols using off-chain data availability with enforced on-chain commitments—like NODL's roadmap for decentralized content infrastructure—offer a compromise between performance and decentralization.

Strengths: Scalable collaboration while reducing operational bloat on Layer 1. Improves user-generated content validation throughput.

Weaknesses: Relies heavily on off-chain actors for hosting data fragments. This may introduce attack vectors or retrigger centralized bottlenecks if incentives aren't aligned.

4. Insight Mining through Staked Curatorship

A novel theoretical model involves staking to curate information rather than just data. Curators would risk tokens to elevate ideas or insights, forming a sort of economic epistemology framework. This is not far off from Liquid Finance’s model of incentivized signal generation, but applied at the knowledge layer.

Strengths: Alignment of incentive with long-form accuracy over short-term engagement. Could surface non-obvious truths.

Weaknesses: Subjectivity in what qualifies as “insight” muddies automated disputes. Token-weighted curation may enable whales to dominate intellectual narratives.

Next, we explore how these architectures are being tested in real-world deployments—from peer-to-peer learning protocols to decentralized academic publishing frameworks.

Part 3 – Real-World Implementations

Real-World Implementations of Decentralized Knowledge Sharing on the Blockchain

Despite the theoretical alignment between decentralized knowledge sharing and blockchain architecture, real-world implementations remain a proving ground. A handful of projects have attempted to operationalize these ideals, each with their own friction points and breakthroughs.

One of the most notable implementations is NODL, a data-focused blockchain ecosystem with ambitions to create user-governed knowledge networks through token-driven validation mechanisms. In its early design, NODL leveraged dynamic staking to prioritize high-quality data curation. However, it quickly encountered challenges around reputation oracles — specifically in preventing Sybil attacks while still maintaining a permissionless ethos.

The project attempted to resolve this by integrating temporal proof-of-contribution models layered on top of IPFS-based storage. While technically sophisticated, these stacks introduced latency in content retrieval and verification. Some early adopters reported data propagation inefficiencies, especially in environments without regional node density. For more insights into NODL's early struggles and future directions, explore this deep dive into NODL.

Elsewhere, Liquid Driver approached decentralized knowledge differently — by modeling a liquidity mining equivalent for collaborative knowledge production within a DeFi framework. Users could “stake” informational outputs (whitepapers, technical proposals) and earn LQDR yield based on DAO-reviewed upvotes. While novel in approach, this eventually surfaced governance centralization issues. A small cluster of DAO voters began dominating approval cycles, indirectly skewing incentives toward opinion pieces rather than peer-validated knowledge.

A critical issue faced in both projects is consensus scalability. Whether curating technical documentation or indexing peer-reviewed research, validation times ballooned as datasets grew. This raises key questions about UX viability at scale — especially when Ethereum L1 gas fees remain a bottleneck and L2 integrations aren’t fully knowledge-oriented.

On-chain storage costs also shaped architecture choices. Many teams opted for off-chain storage with on-chain hashes, reducing trustlessness but gaining cost-efficiency. In contrast, blockchain-native platforms like Arweave push for permanence through blockweaving, but encounter limitations around mutable knowledge (e.g., evolving scientific understanding).

Finally, intellectual property constraints remain unresolved. Most of these ecosystems still lack robust, interoperable licensing schemas baked into smart contracts, making it difficult to enforce use boundaries or facilitate collaborative remixing across jurisdictions.

Next, the series will evaluate how these friction points might be resolved in the long term, and what evolutionary paths decentralized knowledge sharing could take when driven by composable blockchain infrastructure and AI-augmented validation models.

Part 4 – Future Evolution & Long-Term Implications

The Future Trajectory of Decentralized Knowledge Platforms: Toward Modularity and Cross-Chain Intelligence

Decentralized knowledge-sharing platforms are poised for a reinvention that goes far beyond mere data dissemination. The emerging frontier is modular intelligence—knowledge nodes that evolve into composable components in a broader Web3 ecosystem. These platforms are transitioning from passive repositories to dynamic computational agents capable of learning, interpreting, and interacting across chains and protocols. This shift is gaining traction as more decentralized applications (dApps) begin to rely on semantic interoperability frameworks powered by augmented on-chain metadata and off-chain oracles.

Scalability remains a critical bottleneck, especially as these platforms attempt to accommodate multi-modal content—code, text, voice, even generative AI outputs. Layer-2 and emerging Layer-3 architectures are expected to address throughput constraints, especially when optimized for storage-heavy protocols or AI-enhanced indexing. Notably, the cross-pollination between zero-knowledge rollups (ZKRs) and decentralized knowledge systems opens the door for privacy-preserving queries across sensitive datasets, without violating user sovereignty.

Interoperability with decentralized data protocols and oracles is already enabling use cases where collective intelligence can be used to parameterize DeFi risk models, DAO governance mechanisms, and dynamic NFT ecosystems. This direction echoes innovations seen in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-evolution-of-nodl-in-the-crypto-world, where data portability and curation were key to utility across silos. The alignment between specialized knowledge networks and crypto economic incentives also suggests a future in which knowledge verification is tokenized—turning peer validation into a governance primitive.

However, integrations are not without frictions. Fractured standards and insufficient consensus on knowledge schemas often lead to siloed development, mirroring early-stage DeFi fragmentation. There’s also concern about the long-term sustainability of incentive alignment—how does one reward high-signal knowledge without opening the door to adversarial noise injection? Reputation layers and quadratic staking models are being explored, though none have yet achieved consensus trust among developers or researchers.

Future breakthroughs will likely come from the intersection of decentralized storage, AI-model provenance checks, and blockchain-based attestation. The race isn't just who builds faster blockchains but who builds systems that can verify evolving knowledge claims without centralized adjudication. This has implications not just for DeFi and dApps but for how users themselves become programmable agents of knowledge production.

Governance will inevitably follow innovation here. As platforms integrate multi-chain intelligence and AI-enhanced moderation, the question of who decides what is "valid knowledge" becomes increasingly political—and technical. That challenge will be explored further in the next section, which will delve into the complexities of decentralization, voting models, and decision-making architecture.

Part 5 – Governance & Decentralization Challenges

Governance and Decentralization Challenges in Blockchain-Based Knowledge Sharing

The governance models behind decentralized knowledge platforms operate within a paradox: true decentralization requires broad participation, but effective decision-making demands coherence. As platforms grow, maintaining both becomes increasingly difficult. Centralized governance offers speed and coordination but undermines trust and censorship resistance. Decentralized governance promotes inclusivity and resilience but opens the door to unique threats like plutocracy, network inertia, and governance attacks.

One fundamental challenge lies in vote concentration among token holders. Governance token distribution mechanisms—whether via staking, liquidity mining, or retroactive airdrops—tend to concentrate voting power among whales or early insiders. Even in systems promoting quadratic voting or delegated governance, power often proxies back to a handful of visible actors. This risks replicating centralized control structures under a decentralized veneer, leading to what many call plutocratic governance. Token-based voting systems can also incentivize purely financial decision-making at the cost of long-term protocol sustainability.

Governance attacks remain a critical risk vector. Malicious actors can acquire large amounts of tokens on secondary markets during periods of low participation and pass proposals designed to siphon funds, redirect incentives, or hard fork governance to centralized control. These attacks exploit low voter turnout and the apathy of passive stakeholders. Protocols like those discussed in Decentralized Governance: Shaping the Future of NODL explore mitigations via staking locks and challenge periods, but these measures increase system complexity and latency.

In contrast, centralized alternatives—some using multisig councils or closed DAOs—offer clearer accountability and implementation efficiency, but they face another existential threat: regulatory capture. In jurisdictions with tightening crypto legislation, centralized actors may be required to censor or filter knowledge modules based on local regulations. This is especially problematic for platforms advocating unrestricted access to knowledge, particularly when that knowledge is politically sensitive.

The governance model must also contend with incentive misalignment. Contributors interested in openness and academic integrity may conflict with token holders focused on revenue generation. Without careful incentives and well-designed staking slashing mechanisms, civil attacks and low-quality content spam can degrade knowledge quality while governance remains gridlocked on basic operational functions.

Hybrid models—using decentralized identity systems, reputation scoring, and transparent metrics—are emerging, but these often require off-chain inputs and moderation layers, reintroducing trust dependencies. Striking the right balance between community-driven wisdom and protocol coherence is far from solved.

Part 6 will examine how these challenges interact with scalability constraints, and the necessary engineering trade-offs needed to evolve toward broader adoption.

Part 6 – Scalability & Engineering Trade-Offs

Engineering Trade-Offs in Decentralized Knowledge Platforms: Navigating Scalability, Security, and Speed

Scaling decentralized knowledge sharing platforms beyond niche communities introduces architectural constraints that require balancing three competing priorities: decentralization, security, and speed. The blockchain trilemma still looms large, especially when platforms attempt to operationalize knowledge exchange at a global scale without compromising user agency or verifiability.

Highly decentralized protocols like Ethereum prioritize censorship resistance and trustless execution but trade off throughput due to consensus overhead. Layer 2 rollups improve on throughput but introduce data availability and security dependencies. In contrast, application-specific chains—such as Cosmos-based models—offer modularity, allowing nodes to validate custom logic but fragment liquidity and governance coordination.

Consensus mechanism choice compounds these issues. Proof-of-Work (PoW) chains like Bitcoin are secure but slow and resource-intensive, unsuitable for dynamic data interactions inherent in peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus addresses speed and environmental concerns, yet capital centralization and validator collusion risks persist—increasingly relevant when critical knowledge distribution may be susceptible to influence or manipulation. Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant (aBFT) designs offer speed with partial trust assumptions, but require complex cryptographic coordination, complicating interoperability for multi-chain collaborations.

Data anchoring for decentralized knowledge further strains scalability. Reliably timestamping evolving, crowd-maintained knowledge requires high-frequency writes, potentially congesting mainnet chains. IPFS-style architectures offload content storage, but metadata consensus must still live on-chain. Lightweight consensus methods, like Tendermint or Avalanche, improve finality speeds—but often at the cost of validator decentralization. Sharding, meanwhile, introduces cross-shard complexities that can delay dispute resolution in moderated content ecosystems.

More granular implementations highlight these tensions. As seen in modular frameworks like A Deepdive into NODL, separating execution, consensus, and data layers can optimize efficiency. Yet these optimizations demand intensive off-chain coordination frameworks or data availability committees (DACs), which—as trust-enhancing as they may seem—reintroduce centralization vectors if not properly audited or decentralized themselves.

Latency is another battlefield. Knowledge sharing platforms often involve real-time collaboration—e.g., reputation scoring, dynamic curation, or community moderation—all of which are difficult to execute on L1 infrastructures. As a result, teams are forced into compromises such as batching transactions, using trusted relayers, or deploying app-chain solutions that can jeopardize censorship resistance due to validator whitelisting or sequencer control.

Architectures that offer slimmer trade-offs—like IOST’s efficiency-focused design—attempt to maintain decentralization while boosting TPS. However, these alternative designs often struggle with developer adoption due to tooling fragmentation and reduced composability, as explored in IOST vs Rivals The Scalability Showdown.

Part 7 will critically examine how these engineering choices shape — and are shaped by — regulatory and compliance frameworks that may constrain future innovation and decentralization in this space.

Part 7 – Regulatory & Compliance Risks

Regulatory & Compliance Risks in Decentralized Knowledge Platforms: Navigating the Legal Minefield

The development of decentralized knowledge-sharing platforms represents a fundamental collision between decentralized ideals and centralized legal oversight. As these platforms incentivize content curation, verification, and dissemination through tokenized mechanisms—often governed by DAOs—they inevitably intersect with complex and often contradictory regulatory landscapes.

One of the most pressing issues is jurisdictional fragmentation. A decentralized platform may be managed by a DAO registered in the British Virgin Islands, operated by contributors in Europe, and accessed by users globally. This raises questions of applicable law, especially around intellectual property, content liability, and consumer protection. For instance, while the U.S. Communications Decency Act offers platforms broad immunity from user-generated content liability, similar protections are not guaranteed in the EU, where the Digital Services Act enhances platform accountability.

Government scrutiny is intensifying, especially when tokens are involved. Many such platforms incentivize contributions using utility tokens or NFTs, which could be classified as securities under the Howey Test in the U.S. This risk looms heavily over open ecosystems, as demonstrated by historical enforcement cases involving non-custodial DeFi protocols and token distribution models.

Compounding this is the ambiguity around DAO legal status. While Wyoming and a few other regions have introduced legal recognition of DAOs, most jurisdictions do not. This exposes contributors and core developers to regulatory action, since enforcement often targets individuals in absence of a clearly defined legal entity. For knowledge-sharing platforms that reward moderation and content validation via token-based voting systems, this introduces a real and present compliance hazard.

Furthermore, platforms using decentralized storage solutions like IPFS or Arweave for hosting knowledge content may face compliance challenges under right-to-be-forgotten regulations like the GDPR. Once content is published to immutable file systems, takedown mechanisms become practically non-existent, potentially breaching legal frameworks built on centralized architectures and data control.

The historical treatment of crypto projects—such as the heavy-handed intervention against privacy coins or extensive diagnostic audits forced upon platforms like Tornado Cash—demonstrates a willingness among regulators to act punitively when uncertain about intent or compliance mechanisms. Knowledge-focused platforms tying in financial incentives must be prepared to defend not just technical decentralization, but the integrity and legality of economic structures.

These underlying tensions cannot be sidestepped. As with projects like NODL that have tackled decentralized governance head-on (Decentralized Governance: Shaping the Future of NODL), knowledge-sharing protocols must proactively address regulatory exposure through well-structured DAO legal wrappers, user incentivization auditability, and clear jurisdictional mapping.

Next, we’ll explore how these factors cascade into economic and financial consequences—from token value dynamics to market fragmentation caused by regional access restrictions.

Part 8 – Economic & Financial Implications

The Financial Shift Fueled by Decentralized Knowledge Sharing Platforms in Web3 Economies

Unlike traditional social platforms monetized through ad models and attention extraction, decentralized knowledge sharing platforms (DKSPs) introduce entirely new tokenized economies grounded in stakes, contributions, and reputation. This reshapes not only value creation but also value accrual, forcing both investors and developers to reconsider the foundation of economic participation.

From an investment angle, DKSPs function more like decentralized social utilities than pure-play content platforms. They incentivize knowledge contribution via tokens, often embedded with staking mechanics and dynamic reputation-based rewards. This model generates recurring interactions with financial implications far beyond transactional posts—they create ongoing micro-economies. For developers and traders, this opens a dual opportunity: participate directly in the growth of knowledge economies while trading tokens with volatility driven not by hype, but by content gravity and utility. As seen in projects like NODL, staking mechanisms tied to participation unlock sustainable token flows and reduce reliance on speculative inflows.

Institutional investors, however, face more friction. These platforms usually resist centralized governance or top-down monetization structures, which contrasts with traditional growth models that prioritize executive control and monetizable user data. Moreover, most DKSPs rely on DAO-based governance, where financial influence is capped to protect epistemic integrity. This severely limits the orchestrated capital games that defined early DeFi and CeFi models. Paradoxically, this resistance to centralization may enhance long-term value accrual but reduces short-term strategic exit viability—an unattractive position for institutions optimized for quarterly returns.

Nevertheless, economic risks remain. Token-incentivized communities can drift into adversarial behavior—gaming the system for rewards rather than genuine knowledge contribution. Token inflation risks dilute incentives if reward schedules are misaligned. A misconfigured bonding curve or DAO treasury mechanism can exacerbate these issues, leading to user fatigue, loss of contributors, and cascading price devaluations. Moreover, as knowledge becomes tokenized, the exposure of contributors to unverified financial strategies heightens the risk of misinformation being weaponized for market manipulation—a poorly mitigated attack vector in emerging DKSPs.

Ultimately, DKSPs force a redefinition of financial value within ecosystems traditionally ruled by liquidity, speculation, and viral memetics. They shift attention from yield farming to “thought farming”—and this will not please everyone. Many actors will need to adapt their economic expectations to environments where thinking, not trading, builds wealth.

Part 9 will step away from dollars and tokens to unpack how these knowledge economies challenge long-held notions of truth, meritocracy, and human collaboration.

Part 9 – Social & Philosophical Implications

Economic and Financial Implications of Decentralized Knowledge Sharing Platforms in the Blockchain Ecosystem

The adoption of decentralized knowledge sharing platforms is not just a technological paradigm shift—it comes with potent economic ramifications that can reshape crypto markets and investment strategies. By eliminating centralized gatekeeping in data production and curation, these platforms introduce new dimensions to valuation mechanisms, user incentives, and capital allocation models.

In current crypto economies, knowledge is often locked behind paywalled research platforms or exclusive analytics services. When decentralized systems tokenize knowledge generation and curation, they not only disrupt these incumbents but also create micro-economies where informational arbitrage becomes more accessible and less exclusive. Projects that tokenize both content contribution and verification—using staking mechanisms to signal trust—can attract liquidity away from traditional data platforms and even from yield-farming DeFi protocols.

For institutional investors, this space presents asymmetric investment opportunities with novel risk profiles. Participating in the governance of nascent knowledge markets—or backing protocols at the infrastructure layer—offers exposure to new primitives in attention economy monetization. But the lack of consistent metrics to evaluate contributor reputation, topic relevance, and content performance introduces valuation opacity. Capital flow may chase speculative trends driven by hype rather than utility, creating volatility without fundamentals.

On the development side, open-source contributors could benefit from more transparent compensation models. Instead of relying on grants or corporate sponsorships, they can earn directly through frictionless token rewards tied to engagement or peer-assessed impact. However, this introduces complex problems around Sybil resistance, incentive gaming, and network manipulation—particularly when token prices are liquid and speculatively traded.

For day traders and market analysts, the platforms represent a dual-edged sword. On one side, real-time access to decentralized sentiment data and predictive analytics could radically improve alpha generation for those who know how to leverage it. On the other, sudden shifts in collective narratives could render previously robust signals obsolete, weakening the reliability of technical indicators.

There remains the economic risk of fragmentation. Competing protocols launching similar ecosystems could fracture liquidity, dilute adoption, and diminish user trust. The failure to establish a broad-based interoperability standard—both in data output formats and content verification models—might turn promising systems into high-noise silos with limited network effects.

Projects like NODL are already exploring components of this model. To learn how they are positioning for these changes, check out Unlocking NODL: The Future of Cryptocurrency Uses.

As these platforms scale, the implications won’t remain confined to market charts or token valuations—they’ll challenge deep-rooted assumptions about knowledge creation and trust itself. This sets the stage for an inquiry not about code or capital, but about ethics, identity, and collective reason.

Part 10 – Final Conclusions & Future Outlook

Decentralized Knowledge Sharing Platforms: Future Pathways Between Promise and Pitfall

After dissecting the technical architecture, governance dynamics, incentive structures, and real-world use cases of decentralized knowledge sharing platforms, one reality remains clear: their impact will largely hinge on how stakeholder alignment is achieved without compromising decentralization principles. These platforms promise to democratize access to intellectual capital, but the route to collective intelligence is still fraught with questions around sustainability, adoption, and protocol design.

In a best-case scenario, decentralized knowledge platforms become the backbone of open-access innovation. Communities self-curate repositories through tokenized validation, bias-resistant incentives eliminate traditional gatekeepers, and crypto-native education emerges as the default standard. This could complement existing blockchain ecosystems such as NODL, which aims to decentralize not just economic tools but also informational access. Integrating layered platforms powered by smart contracts and decentralized governance could create a multidirectional feedback loop of learning, experimentation, and iteration.

However, the worst-case scenario looms just as large. Fragmentation, governance capture, and lack of user incentives could render these systems inactive or monopolized. We’ve already seen similar platforms turn into echo chambers or fail due to unclear token economics and low contributor retention. Without significant onboarding simplification and real-world value recognition, there's a risk these platforms either become redundant repositories or speculative playgrounds for whales and early insiders.

A critical unanswered question remains: Who ensures the validity of knowledge when censorship resistance is absolute? And if each node can propose, but not curate effectively, how do we prevent misinformation loops without replicating existing web2 power structures?

For mainstream adoption, several layers must evolve in parallel: wallet UX/UI improvements, interoperable identity verification, and real-world integrations into educational and professional credential systems. Referral platforms like Binance may ease access to Web3 tools, but meaningful adoption needs frictionless onboarding tethered to real utility.

Ultimately, as we stand at the cusp of a new era of programmable epistemology, one question remains unresolved: will decentralized knowledge sharing define the next chapter of blockchain’s revolutionary arc—or be archived as another idealistic but unsustainable experiment in the history of cryptographic systems?

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com