Ryan J. Shaw on Farcaster

Content pfp

https://warpcast.com/~/channel/alfafrens

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ryan J. Shaw pfp

At last the debate arrives at our hidden presuppositions! @vijay believes that a 70% cashback parameter will promote more participation in AF than an e.g. 30% cashback parameter, and therefore will produce more revenue overall for *some* channels. I believe the number of subscribers in my channel is a result of *my* hard work, not $ALFA games. I don't need the gamification - my game is delivering cold, hard content 👊 So this is why I'm annoyed that my work is being potentially discounted down 70%, and why @vijay is annoyed *his* work to build an active subscriber base is being discounted by me in turn. Specifically, the 70% parameter would need to consistently bring in 2.6x more subscribers with the e.g. 30% parameter for @vijay's argument to hold. Who's correct? I think he and I are on the same page here -- it needs to be a configurable parameter which each channel can play with and discover what works best for themselves.

11 replies

3 recasts

26 reactions

alexesc 🎩 pfp

If they remove that cashback percentage, they'll turn an interesting model that combines elements of DeFi with subscriptions into a traditional Web2 subscription model that isn't working. There are many subscription systems through newsletters and others on Web2, where most of the money goes to the creator. Wouldn't keeping the current model, where subscribers get a share, incentivize more people to subscribe and support the platform? In the current model, I'm motivated by the content, but also by what I receive from my subscription. If it were only for the content, I'd only be subscribed to a maximum of 4 or 5 channels. I receive Alfa that I can invest in the channel I'm subscribed to, or in any other I would like to support to grow. It's a well-thought-out model. I support you, but I also receive something from that support.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Ryan J. Shaw pfp

Web2 uses credit cards and direct, month-up-front crypto transactions. The AlfaFrens model says "deposit a pool of funds for your monthly content needs, and stream it out second by second to people you find interesting". The cashback % parameter is a debatable *opinion* about how to drive discovery and adoption of this new experimental model.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

alexesc 🎩 pfp

Agree. But the AlfaFrens model, where you 'deposit funds for your monthly content needs and stream it out to interesting people,' sounds great in an ideal world with widespread adoption. However, in the current landscape, where most users are crypto enthusiasts, developers, and artists, it's difficult for professionals like my brother (a doctor) or myself (a mechanical engineer) to find subscribers or readers interested in our content. What we do find interesting about AlfaFrens is that it offers an engaging way to invest in and support content creators we enjoy, almost like a DeFi model that many of us are familiar with. By subscribing, we can help them earn money and continue publishing, while potentially getting some return on our subscription.

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Ryan J. Shaw pfp

Okay so you see it as an investment opportunity. Where do you see the growth in channel value, which represents the return on your investment, coming from? Consider a traditional non-financial business: it only grows in value because of the output it produces. Channels are also non-financial businesses. To grow in value they have to produce some kind of output that is valuable. If the channel revenue distribution is unfavourable to certain kinds of content producers, then that kind of content won't be produced. The only other source of growth would be other people's investments. But then channels are financial businesses, specifically, speculative investments with memetic underlying value. That's fine if that's your thing, but that's not what I'm there for.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

alexesc 🎩 pfp

I see AlfaFrens as an engaging subscription model where I receive a portion of my spending back. This return isn't just about financial speculation or 'memetic' value. It's about directly supporting the creators whose content I enjoy and being rewarded for my participation. Content creation is a unique form of value generation. The value of a channel grows through a combination of factors: Quality content, A loyal community, Network effects: As channels grow, they become more discoverable and attract a wider audience, and Potential for future monetization

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ryan J. Shaw pfp

Right and I'm saying that many of the content creators you want to support don't want to work on a platform that takes the majority of their revenue. So, if the content creators aren't on the platform, who are you investing in exactly?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

alexesc 🎩 pfp

I understand your concern about creators not wanting to work on a platform that takes a large cut of their revenue. However, you're presenting a scenario as if creators aren't earning on AlfaFrens, which isn't the case. They currently receive 25% of their revenue and have the option to reinvest their ALFA in their own channel (the Le Bleu model) to potentially earn a larger share of the remaining 75%. This model provides creators with a unique opportunity to benefit from the platform's growth while still earning a direct income from their content. It's a more nuanced approach than simply focusing on the initial revenue split.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

AlvarLord pfp

Responding to both with my opinion, I see it clearly, the content creator is the one who should choose how much he receives for his content, not the platform. And it must be dynamic, not preset values that cannot be modified. It will be the law of supply and demand that dictates the ruling, if subscribers don't see as much value in his content, they will leave, unless the creator modifies the cashback to continue attracting subs through the benefit of the reward. AF was conceived to empower creators, so it focuses on attracting them with changes like the one being debated. If nothing is done, AF will fall into oblivion, because the majority that entered at the beginning was fundamentally to speculate.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction