There is no demand for “getting paid to create content” on social media platforms (or blockchains for that matter).

1. Every other social media platform has thrived with no user incentive to post besides an audience. An audience is a better incentive than cash! You can sell whatever you want to an audience. This excludes YouTube which requires significantly more effort to create content on.

2. Not everyone can be a “content creator”. Content is infinitely reproducible and sharable, meaning the top 1% will get 99% of the attention. There’s no longer a local musician in every town. There’s a select few for the whole world.

The whole thing is a massive grift to inflate usage and content that no one will ever see.

> Every other social media platform has thrived with no user incentive to post besides an audience.

How many new at-scale social media platforms in the US in the last 10 years?

Only 1. TikTok. And they spent $1B+ for multiple years on Facebook ads to acquire users. 

So instead of transferring that value to Meta, why not try to transfer it directly to the users building the network?

This wasn’t targeted at Farcaster and I do think the rewards system is a clever way to drive dopamine hits. As you’ve said yourself though it’s not sustainable and a world where we all make significant sums of money by posting will never happen

The current system is sustainable. That’s why it’s not that big in crypto market terms.

Head of Engineering at Courtyard.io, bringing physical collectibles onchain. nf.td/joe /courtyard /backend

yes I'm aware of that, but that's unrelated to the airdrops you've been promoting from third parties; are those sustainable?

We sold 12,000+ $120 subscriptions. 100% proceeds to rewards.

Interested to hear how it's sustainable, is there value flowing into the network besides the amount of the airdrops?

Meant scalable not sustainable (or sustainable while scaling really)