Live data from Hacker News

In Praise of Ponzis

drorpoleg.com

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#31
post #4
post #2

> The viewers who watched [Gangnam Style] earned nothing, even though many of them contributed and were critical to the video's ultimate success. What if there was a way to incentivize people upfront to contribute to such a success? What if there was a way to let everyone who contributed earn a piece of the rewards? What if we stopped trying to monetise every single action from every single person every single day? P…

You could also punish people who vote for unpopular content. Similar to how captchas work, if you vote in the minority, you could be assumed to be a 'bot'. This would also require some kind of ML to account for your interests, so you would be compared against others with similar interests.

If you're serious about finding real cultural value, you should do the exact opposite of what you just proposed.

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#32
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, its that there is no middlemen, but the function that the middlemen were doing gets done and now the profit he was making can go to the users and creators.

Sounds suspiciously like you're moving the middlemen around not removing them if a bunch of other people are being paid to do the same job.

No, there are no people being paid for the job, the job is automated so the profit of that job can go to other people not the middlemen. Kind of the opposite of how everything works right now where you get free as in beer software that becomes infrastructure and then starts to exploit that in every possible way.

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#33
The title really isn't exaggerating, they are praising criminal behavior. The only thing is their example of the token $PEOPLE wasnt a ponzi scheme because it had a propose but it could easily have been if someone realized what could happen. Other people looking at the results of it will likely try to copy the process to make actual ponzi scheme's. How he justifies it sounds exactly like an argument a scammer would use to justify their theft. A scammer might reason "i didnt take the money they willingly gave it" "I gave them value in the intricate story/passionate love letters/made them feel important/gave them purpose" "some people made money and they could have been one of them if they got out in time"

at the end he makes the argument that we no longer sell things but narratives hold value. The issue with his argument is informed consent. Informed is the key here he says that people buying the $PEOPLE token know its worthless except for being part of history. Thats not accurate real money was initially paid so many people will assign a value to it since it cost money despite what its current real value is. They would also be a part of it whether they put in a cent or a $1000 into it. it went so high in value because people speculated that their money would get them more future value in it than other more traditional options. but wait then its just a speculative investment like other crypto. Not really scammers use the narrative to deceive people of the real value. people pay for the equivalent of scams eg escorts, escape rooms, romance novel's if you convince them through a narrative that its real they pay far more.

i wrote too much already but his idea of paying people on completion of an action online is a refining and progression of the already damaging effect of targeted adverting and influencers. How much worse do you think scam advertisements and foreign and domestic manipulation could be if they could dangle a carrot instead of just a picture or video on the side?

I think any content creator dreams of making a simple narrative worth millions of dollars or being able to dangle money in front of their viewers to make them dance but as far as im concerned we have gotten too close to that reality already and doing so will just make things worse.

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#34
> The viewers who watched [Gangnam Style] earned nothing, even though many of them contributed and were critical to the video's ultimate success.

The author is wrong here, even though it rings true. Early viewers who shared a popular video before it was popular earn the reputation of knowing the next cool thing before everyone else does. They gain “I liked this band before it was cool -tokens”. That’s worth something among peers. If we start to pay out monetary value in addition to that, than we would actually overpay the early viewers. Market forces will eventually rebalance the equation such that early viewers will neglect the reputation part and just start sharing as many videos as possible regardless whether the personally think that those videos are the next cool thing.

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#35
post #34

> The viewers who watched [Gangnam Style] earned nothing, even though many of them contributed and were critical to the video's ultimate success. The author is wrong here, even though it rings true. Early viewers who shared a popular video before it was popular earn the reputation of knowing the next cool thing before everyone else does. They gain “I liked this band before it was cool -tokens”. That’s worth something…

They also got to enjoy the music.

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#37
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the idea was to have less middlemen?

No, its that there is no middlemen, but the function that the middlemen were doing gets done and now the profit he was making can go to the users and creators.

> and now the profit he was making can go to the users and creators

Conveniently using this speculative investment that I own a lot of and you don't as the payment currency!

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#38
post #2

> The viewers who watched [Gangnam Style] earned nothing, even though many of them contributed and were critical to the video's ultimate success. What if there was a way to incentivize people upfront to contribute to such a success? What if there was a way to let everyone who contributed earn a piece of the rewards? What if we stopped trying to monetise every single action from every single person every single day? P…

Also, the premise is wrong. Lots of people that saw Gangnam Style liked it, they spent a nice moment watching it. They contributed in exchange with one or multiple views, and maybe a like, to promote this kind of content.

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#39
post #11

> This means people were willing to pay a 10,000% premium in order to buy shares in a project that no longer has a purpose. And it wasn'y just a handful of people — a whole liquid market emerged. Yesterday, nearly two weeks after the failed option, the daily trading volume in $PEOPLE tokens was over $70,000,000. Why would anyone pay to buy a token that no longer has a purpose? The fact that we can't distinguish self-…

The upside is that it doesn't matter if its just one guy trading with himself, what matters is liquidity and you can't fake that (except if you are the owner of centralized exchanges, but those are terrible anyway).

I don't follow.

> the liquidity of a given token is a function of the number of buy and sell orders on the books

By trading with myself it looks like there's a lot of liquidity, no?

Re: In Praise of Ponzis

#40
The central Gangnam Style example is… meaningless? The reason micropayments hasn’t taken off isn’t the difficulty in collecting payment details. Many companies have tried to solve that using accounts and batching transactions. This is yet another example of Web3Hype that doesn’t rely on Web3 at all.

Even on top of that: a quick google suggests Gangnam Style has 4 billion plays, and generated something like 8 million USD in revenue. Or 20 cents per play. Ok that’s nice, but it’s hardly going to legitimately revolutionize the internet industry is it?

Post reply on HN