One of the weirdest things a lot of creator economy type companies do is put a lot of effort into getting big name creators on their platform. Why would you favor the 0.1% of creators who were able to thrive in the old system in favor of the 99.9% who’s been left behind?

design @splits | prev @event and @latenightcrew

exactly.

creator economy leads to

1. a power law (rich/famous get richer and more famous)

2. hopium-filled slotmachine for the poor to keep playing to win algorithmic lottery (tiktok style)

🤮

cc: @tike @matthew 

on the other side, 
p2p tipping with noice or 

small-group onchain poker like with farpoker or onchain commerce (marketplace selling of merch or services) - those are more realistic ways to make a bit of money for the average user consistently

designer & maker (trust over attention) | creator of IRL walk & talk club | prev founding team rara.social | EV grantee @Mercatus, YakCollective, IIT Kanpur

Yes in web2 social networks based on follower-following relationships, they promoted power law dominated hubs. 

but its not a given for social networks to have a power law. 

social clubs in offline world(like the one i host or parties in hollywood or academic collaborations or startup teams) have more of a small-world structure than scale-free networks like that of Twitter & Instagram. 

Initial era of Facebook was more small-world like when it was limited to elite college campuses like Harvard.

i think generally *everything* falls into the power law

VC, stocks, tokens, habits, relationships et al 

so the big 0.1% creators will bring in 98% of the viewership / volumes and so on 

although w noice anybody can earn via a like