John Palmer 💡
@john
I'm finding the "positive sum" language around coins really misleading. It's literally the opposite. If the way users make money from their content is when other users buy it, it's literally zero sum, financially. Not everyone can be making money, unless external capital is being injected from a another source (which is losing money).
15 replies
5 recasts
96 reactions
Rani Haddad
@4484.eth
I think this misses the bigger picture. if you treat coins purely as a closed system with buyers and sellers, it looks zero sum. but that ignores the fact that attention and discovery are not fixed resources. the “positive sum” comes not from everyone making magic internet money, but from the system enabling value to emerge where there was none before. leads to better discovery, better content, and more people opting in, that is net positive. also remember that money is infinite, and if not injected here, its injected elsewhere.
4 replies
1 recast
7 reactions
SQX
@sqx
Does it though. I understand the theory. But in practice. I envision more trickle up. And gaming. By those who can. How is this different than other attention to signal. This one is just paid attention. With a nasty rake by the protocol.
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Rani Haddad
@4484.eth
totally fair to be skeptical. but i’d argue the key difference here is skin in the game. traditional attention signals (likes, shares, comments) are cheap and often gamed through bots. this model forces users to back their attention with actual capital, even if small. that creates a higher fidelity signal. yes, there will be gaming. there always is. but paid markets tend to resist noise better than free ones. and while there is a rake here, remember that there is always a rake somewhere in any system. nothing is free. i do not think its perfect. but opens space for some new incentive structures.
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
