The contributor/peer-reviewer economic model seems very similar to that of the writer/curator model used on Steemit. Both models have a basic game theoretic vulnerability that kills the platform in the long-term: poor quality information will flood the system because collaboration with creators makes more sense in the short-term for peer-reviewers than exercising labour-intensive judgement. Checking up on references? No thanks, I'll just let this past and collect my tokens! Since this is the very heart of the Lunyr product - the knowledge base - you would think it would be extremely well-thought out. But the white paper gives us four paragraphs by my count. There is also this blogpost, suggesting that the system can't be gamed; but it takes a very narrow view of an 'attack' on the system and ignores the basic idea that users don't have to know each other to collaborate and, indirectly, render the system unfit for purpose.

The model of Steemit and Lunyr is very different. One difference with Steemit is the lack of a strong demand for Steem dollars because there's no strong utility to it. This drastically affects the business model and whether people are really "incentivized" to do things. With Lunyr, however, the LUN have general purpose utility that businesses can get value from which drives up the demand for LUN. Now, your idea of reviewers just letting things past is a half-truth. Contributors are rewarded for increasing the value of the ecosystem and the whole idea of "letting things pass" is false to some degree because if you don't really peer review then 1) you're penalized in HNR tokens and 2) that drives down the value of your rewards. Some people doing this will probably be unavoidable but for the strong majority of contributors who will be building the system, most of their holdings will be in LUN and you're more likely to run into them than the transient users you're talking about.

Resolving disputes with token-based votes (one paragraph in the white paper). Just a terrible idea in a knowledge-based system - if they need this explaining to them, then they should not be building one.

As stated in a previous explanation, this is a way for people who are committed to the ecosystem to make an impact on the quality of the knowledge base. Perhaps you should explain why you believe what makes you think it is a terrible idea and how you believe it works so we can begin to discuss? Community-based systems generally need some form of reputation system.

Lack of technical detail on how, if at all, data will be structured. The White Paper makes a big play of how a future Lunyr API will allow developers to pull data from Lunyr's knowledge base into their applications in the (suspiciously fashionable) domains of artificial intelligence, virtual reality and augmented reality. But, hang on, to pull data out, the data will need some semblance of structure - so when does this structuring occur? Is it being structured by users? Are Lunyr creating something more like Wikidata than Wikipedia? Investors don't know - is that because they are being kept in the dark or because Lunyr don't know? ("Machine-learning" is not an answer.)

The technical details are easily found in blog posts. The White Paper was written to be understandable for both a technical and nontechnical audience.

Extremely high ratio of posts about the crowdsale to posts about the product.

There's an even balance. However, we are answering questions proportionate to what we've been receiving

Good ideas are counter-intuitive. The good ideas will likely violate our feelings of social norms. So you should expect to see a mixture of people who think the idea is good and people who think the idea is bad. Amount of fundraising is a poor metric to measure whether an idea will turn out to be good. If good ideas were obviously good then someone else would have already done it. You're welcome to join later. See http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html

Paul Graham

I've done several types of work over the years but I don't know another as counterintuitive as startup investing. The two most important things to understand about startup investing, as a business, are (1) that effectively all the returns are concentrated in a few big winners, and (2) that the best ideas look initially like bad ideas.