I'll repeat more broadly: decentralized social networks (whether crypto or non-crypto architectures) are limited by supply of interesting and entertaining content.

If you increase the supply, audience will follow.

Everything else is downstream of that.

Genuine question: every platform wants this. How is this being tightly incentivized here?

One real incentive is that it's decentralized. But that works to a degree but unclear if sufficient.

Fun havoooooooor | Co-creator of the universe | FuckANiche.com | prev @forefront

On a second thought, maybe you only have limited control over this since the channel owners are the primary gatekeepers. I'm not sure

Correct, but then you're literally competing with every other network. (Unless your main target user base is CT, then sure, you're just competing with X)

You have to ask, "what would make them want to come here if they have just as much of a chance to grow their audience elsewhere?"

If the goal is interesting content, I think a big part of the answer is to experiment with novel designs that make it the most meritocratic network. People have new platform fatigue and few creators want to grind through building another one from scratch. They understand the distribution mechanics aren't in their favor. Before you say "channels", I'd agree they're the best bridge to the end goal but you have to ruthlessly hyper-optimize them for meritocracy. Study Eugene Wei (I know you do lol)

Decentralization is definitely not sufficient.

Only sustainable incentive is growing an audience.