> 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.
In Praise of Ponzis
31–40 of 48 posts
Re: In Praise of Ponzis
#32Earlier 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.
Re: In Praise of Ponzis
#33at 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
#34The 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> 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…
Re: In Praise of Ponzis
#36Re: In Praise of Ponzis
#37Earlier 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.
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> 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…
Re: In Praise of Ponzis
#39> 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).
> 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
#40Even 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?