pko.ch (pkoch)

The question is not "AI alignment", it's just alignment. We already have super-inteligences. Countries, trillion dollar corporations, etc. It's well known they're not aligned enough with the common citizen. So, with whom are we aligning AI with, exactly? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46395292

• 0 replies
• 0 recasts
• 4 reactions

First time having "Christmas" with a bunch of Turks, this year. So much great food! 🤤

• 1 reply
• 0 recasts
• 1 reaction

Privacy is not a setting.

• 0 replies
• 0 recasts
• 1 reaction

Help me do science! Have you ever bought views, likes, or reposts? If so, for what? How did you keasure the efficacy of your purchase?

• 4 replies
• 1 recast
• 100 reactions

Full thing: https://hackmd.io/@eKiId-r1SoqWVAHc9XdaVw/Hk2eDGo7-e Creator coins are a powerful idea, but they're too gambling-heavy and extractive. Let's build something better. ## Mental models For users: "When I Like™ a post, I pay a cent to reward good content. Maybe I get a kickback in Author Tokens if others agree." For authors: "Every Like is real income. I can cash out anytime. I do not manage the token." For Author Token (AT) holders: "I am betting the author will keep producing content people like." ## What this explicitly avoids - Too much speculation. - Price guarantees. - Diverting Like-minted stablecoins away from author reserves. - Neither authors nor users should have to be traders to succeed. Speculators should be optional and not be able to hurt the core mechanics. - Psychological nudges, streaks, epochs. - Protocol debt or buybacks. ## AT supply mechanics Each AT launches with a zero initial supply. Like NFT mints create new AT on demand. AT is burned on author redemption. No fixed cap; emissions are only via Like mints. AT generated by Like mints is made available as claimable AT balance to prior Like holders. Net effect: - Efficient authors (many Likes per post) -> AT tightens. - Inefficient authors -> AT loosens. No bias for "sprayers" or "once-a-year" authors; the market prices efficiency. ## Rationale Post-scoped Like NFTs priced in stablecoins inject value. AT absorbs speculation and buy pressure. Likes are easy, boring, retail-friendly. AT is where belief and risk live. Author income is linear, continuous, and mechanical. - Like NFTs are per-post, fixed-price, stablecoin-minted signals. - AT is a continuous ERC-20 that captures belief and risk; supply expands with Likes and contracts with redemptions. - Every Like injects stablecoins, mints AT, and all stable flows to the author reserve. - Authors redeem AT for stablecoins at a TWAP, but payouts are throttled for predictable cash flow. - AT held by non-authors has no redemption rights and no guarantee of liquidity. ## Core objects ### Like NFTs - One per author post (immutable rules at deploy). - Type: ERC-721, sequential IDs (to easily support AT claims). - Mint price: fixed, stablecoin-denominated (defaults are USDC, 0.01 per like). - Transferable: yes (secondary markets allowed but not the point; no hooks, simple transfer). - Purpose: signal + micro-royalty, not gambling. ### Author Token (AT) - ERC-20. - Continuously replenished; supply expands with Like mints and contracts with redemptions. - Held by believers in future output (or are OK being diluted over time, and keep them as memorabilia). - Only the author can redeem AT for stablecoin; non-authors rely on secondary liquidity. ## Reserve custody model - Per author: a dedicated stablecoin vault for their AT. - Optional seed liquidity: authors (or a sponsor on their behalf) can provide the initial stablecoin and AT to bootstrap their AT/stable pool and retain the LP position. ## Injection -> split -> extraction ### Injection (explicit) User mints Like: 1) User pays stablecoin. 2) Stablecoin enters protocol reserves. 3) Protocol mints AT priced at a DEX-sourced TWAP (no stable is used to buy AT). #### TWAP source (grounded pricing) - TWAP comes from each author's AT/stable pool on a canonical DEX. - Each author (or sponsor) may seed their own AT/stable pool at launch; the protocol does not provide POL. - The oracle only accepts TWAPs when liquidity and observation windows meet minimums; otherwise minting continues but AT allocations are escrowed until a valid TWAP returns. - TWAP is pricing-only; the protocol does not execute market buys of AT during Like mints. ### Split (simple, readable) - All stable from Likes is reserved for the author. - AT is minted as a non-cash bonus and allocated to prior Like NFTs in the same post. - Redistribution is mechanical (equal per prior Like), but never diverts stable away from the author. Distribution rules: - Per-mint snapshot: each Like mint allocates AT equally across existing Like NFTs for that post. - Claimable AT follows the NFT on transfer. - If there are no prior Likes, no AT is allocated for that mint. ### Extraction (continuous, linear with throttling) Authors can redeem AT for stablecoin, but payouts follow a fixed cadence to mimic AdSense. ``` redeem(at_amount) -> stable_out = at_amount * TWAP(AT/stable) -> paid from protocol stable reserves up to max_payout_per_window -> excess redemption queues to the next window ``` This preserves a free-floating AT market while giving the author a predictable redemption stream. No cliffs, no bonuses. The author does not need to sell AT on the open market. Holding AT is optional; redemption is boring and linear. #### Redemption throttle (AdSense-style) - Payout windows are daily. - Each day has a max stable payout per author, based on recent Like mintage. - Example cap: `max_payout_per_day = avg_daily_stable_in_last_30d`. - If reserves are low, redemptions queue and spill into the next window. - The author always knows the payout cadence; market AT remains unrestricted. #### Inactivity decay If the author stops publishing, the daily cap decays toward zero as the mintage window rolls off. This mirrors AdSense: payouts taper based on trailing activity instead of staying fixed forever. ## What about the Subscribe part? This is left as an exercise for the reader.

• 2 replies
• 0 recasts
• 33 reactions

Assuming you don't get to the middle of implementing it and notice some conceptual holes. Software estimates: not even once.

• 1 reply
• 0 recasts
• 11 reactions

Maybe @sayangel has ideas on how latecommers could still get in on the uniqueness of these critters? Maybe cycling them could be a thing? Kill a bought one, generate a new one based on you? Maybe be able to do that with your original one to reflect changes in your own Farcaster presence? I'm just so butthurt. 😢

• 2 replies
• 0 recasts
• 4 reactions