@danicaswanson

I think "network goods" is more appropriate too. I just wish the CLPs and other value-add contributors were better rewarded, though it does seem Farcaster is moving in the right direction with that. You make a good point about the thin line. Financializing social relationships can easily backfire. We see a *reduction* in some kinds of value (especially in social contexts) when financial incentives are introduced. The community is not the product, and ultimately it will die if we try to turn it into a product. But in any case, crypto needs to figure out how to provide for the work involved while minimizing risk to the relationships. I like the way the authors of the post-cognitive income piece acknowledge this tension: "...tracking relationships and reputations could make sharing the benefits of relational embeddedness more straightforward, but it also risks corrupting relationships... this is an open problem, not a solved one. Although tradeoffs cannot be eliminated, minimizing them is a worthy pursuit."

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction