I really think the two are very very similar, and should be treated as such.
They both are of subjective, but important value.
I think that whatever happens to one should happen to both; anything else is playing favorites…
7 Likes
Would anyone use SAFE if it was missing a feature like “Search engine”
It will probably have a massive uphill battle to be relevant without a lot of really good apps.
Apps make the network more useful. Other content is just content…
Is it the best model? Probably not – But app builders deserve ‘tipping’ from the network a lot more than pirate uploaders do. They can and do trade their warez anywhere without getting paid for it, and I don’t see why that ought to change.
3 Likes
You’re proposing a false dilemma. Nothing prevents a content maker sell its work inside an App and win by GETs. And, since the API launcher supports DNS, even from a simple web page stored in the SAFE network.
4 Likes
From the beginning, in the aggregate, I thought of rewards from app GET requests as just a means to pay hosting fees as suppose to a appetizing and business sustaining income stream in and of itself. This is particularly so given the feeling I get from the dev team’s statements. Either way, apps can just use a portion of their user’s safecoin income to pay for hosting content, especially before safecoin becomes a serious currency.
This being the case, both features aren’t necessary to me and they bring gamible elements to a network that by design has to be stupid. So I wouldn’t mind having both features absent from the official network.
Getting paid network-level (and therefore network-wide) is insanely more powerful
Nobody should get paid by the network except farmers IMO.
It’s up to app developers and content creators to figure out how to monetize their content.
10 Likes
The more I think about content creators not getting paid (PtP systems), the more this starts to seem like the only logical and fair alternative
2 Likes
And yet there is a sense in which everything is communication. The edge to app builders makes sense in the race to reach critical mass but once the eco system is stable a more balanced approach may be needed. There is the FOSS angle but also the sometimes greater labor input into apps and software. I could see FOSS using their coin to fund crowd source.
To restate what I said in the other thread, this is an apples and oranges dilemma. First of all:
- Apps are used, content is consumed
- Apps are maintained, content is preserved
- Apps are forked, content is copied
Apps therefore have what’s known as use-value, whereas content has sale-value. Sale-value can be rewarded by selling the content. However, use-value can only be rewarded by the consequences of having a critical amount of users.
Secondly. All content is not equal. Having a reward system built into the network must necessarily mean that the content gets either treated the same, or that the network can differentiate supposedly “good” content from “bad” content. Neither way is preferable.
Lastly, content creators are doing much more than selling their content - they are constantly attempting to “up their cred” and “spead their rep”. The more well-known an artist is, the more the sale-value of their content. Whereas apps, on the other hand, are only judged by their usability and the code base - nothing more, nothing less. Many successful apps written by one person does not neccessarily mean more success - whereas many successful pieces of content created by one person most likely means more success.
There is a cold, hard truth that these are two separate types of data, and I will fight tooth and nail against @whiteoutmashups’ fear-mongering and misguided attempt at futile reasoning this ideology.
8 Likes
Dumb pipe! Ander’s coinless SAfE network, Whitoutmashup’s farmers only, there is something behind this impulse. What is it. Maybe its because it sounds a bit like the telco cable anti neutrality claimes, they are always claiming they need to be able to discriminate for the good of discrimination everywhere.
1 Like
Could not agree more!
2 Likes
I don’t think its good enough to say let’s not try to do this, because we can see problems with PtP etc.
Stepping back, if David wasn’t able to step in and answer all our “but what about this attack” questions for SAFE Network, how many of us would be here, and believe SAFE network was going to work?
Well, he hasn’t been able to step in and explain how PtP can be made to work, because he and the team are still focussed on getting the network finished, but that doesn’t mean that PtP can’t be solved. If anything, it bodes well for it. He and the team are solving problems that none of us, well ok, than I would have not have had a clue could be solved, let alone cracked so many fundamental issues. Just take one: how to log in to a system without servers. Its obvious now he’s shown us how to do it, but I doubt I could have solved it.
So let’s not abandon PtP. Nor should we just assume it can be done. Let’s find out. Let’s get together, identify the issues, and try to solve them or at least stay open while David and the team get to that in due course. David has shown willing to listen and I can see that unless he can convince the community that PtP can work, he won’t press ahead.
So I say, stay open. Why? Because the alternative, not doing PtP leaves us with a status quo that is no better. Even an imperfect PtP could be better than an advert driven network, or one where those with the money can control all the high value content and dictate terms to artists and content creators. We’re here to try and change things, to decentralise power, share the rewards more equitably I think, and that’s why it is important to do our best to achieve PtP or something similar that changes the rules of this game. Let’s do it 
10 Likes
What good is a search engine if there’s nothing to search for? Moreover the point here is that coding IS content. We’re not saying devs shouldn’t be paid. We’re saying that devs are just content providers just like artists and writers and that we’re all in the same boat. So if we can’t figure out a solution for everyone then no one should be paid automatically by the system.
I don’t think the real issue here is that PtP can or can’t be solved. If it can great and if it can’t well that’s for another topic. I think the real issue being discussed here is that devs = content providers just like artists = content providers just like journalists = content providers. Devs = artists = journalists = writers = musicians = people producing stuff of relative subjective value for the network. So that if all of these content providers can’t be fairly given a percentage by the network then none of them should. Up to this point there’s been this attitude that devs are this holy elite but it simply isn’t true. Devs are like engineers but a house is not a home. Youtube would be nothing without all the people creating and uploading all the amazing videos they do. You could develop the best platform ever but unless you get artists and writers and PEOPLE using it it’s all for naught so devs are just one type of content producer, an important one, but still just one facet. So yeah if PtP fails then farmers should get 100% of their farming revenue and we’ll figure out who to donate or otherwise contribute to voluntarily from there.
3 Likes
Jeez dude! WTF u make me sound like I have a bad intention or something WTF why did you put this part
Went from very respectable and logical to very hurtful and personal extremely quickly
1 Like
Content will come to SAFE because SAFE is SAFE… Specifically people don’t like to get DCMA takedown notices and the like…
Content consumes bandwidth and storage space. It is expensive to hand out for free- let alone reward.
Apps make the network more usable and appealing for everyone. We are only going to pay the apps that get used – So I don’t see the two as being anything near equal.
I do prefer an altcoin for all rewards – Because I think economic errors are a likely cause of SAFE failure and keeping it as simple as possible is the best chance of success.
1 Like
Thx Mr @happybeing this helped me with some perspective.
I as well am looking forward to solutions that may come about in the future
1 Like
You aren’t hand out anything for free. I’ll be paying good safecoin for uploading stuff to SAFE. Tanstafl.
Frankly I agree with your altcoin idea as it’s the most decentralized model that would be flexible enough to deal with all kinds of content producers and as I’ve mentioned people have been known to create their own personal altcoins.
If apps only get paid for if they get used why couldn’t you do the same for other forms of content? If a movie is watched or a picture viewed or a song listened to then it gets rewarded? Oh right because that would promote piracy and possibly be “illegal.” But you want to bet someone will write an app to do exactly that.
1 Like
Allow me to explain.
And I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing.
I am not against paying anyone.
Of course not. People should be paid in proportion for the value they provide.
But I as a consumer and user of both apps and content should be able to decide what I ascribe value to and what therefore I decide to pay for when I decide to either consume or use.
Now, I understand MaidSafe is saying the app devs will be paid for use but this seems overly simplistic to me.
I am happy to choose to exchange my safecoins for apps and content or other services that I actually want and use. But to say a network will manage this sounds a little to much like a sales pitch. As they say ‘if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is’.
Lets pull this apart a little more because I have a feeling many people have a similar view.
If I am happy to pay for what I want to use or consume why am I not happy for the network to pay app developers?
Firstly do I get to decide how much the network pays them and what is it even based on? Downloads, time spent using the app? This opens up a whole range issues with far more questions than there are answers.
Secondly when you look at examples of user-generated content it can get tricky. Take the 3 big sites Google, YouTube and Facebook. They all make money off of user generated content (so its a kind of partnership) but only two of them pay their users who create content. Facebook does not yet offer a shared revenue model and so what happens when you pay an app developer who builds and maintains a a good app, yet that app is useless without user generated content. It is essentially a user gen content type of application yet he or she does not share any of that with his or her users?
It would be a miracle if the network could do this fairly, but I have a suspicion this system is going to be full of unnecessary issues.
Why does MaidSafe need to burden itself by attempting to manage all of this? I say leave it up to the market and let the market decide because like in this example of content creators v app developers there are already people who are split down the middle.
I personally like the idea of tipping. If MaidSafe are going to go ahead with this model (they are) at least consider asking all app developers to allow for content tipping where network users and users of their apps can tip content providers. This also reduces the needs for ads,
Or ask the app developers to consider revenue sharing models.
As long as its a win/win for all involved.
EDIT
Have mulled this over and over. Best most simple way of doing this (and it should be done, PtP I mean)
All they need to do is continue doing what they are doing with regard to developing a reward for app devs and then place the responsibility on the app developer to either offer shared revenue model or a tipping model for content creators via their app.
MS seem to like their natural systems philosophy and in this way the
reward system is similar to a tree. In a tree model the trunk does not
necessarily support every branch and leaf. The trunk supports large
branches, large branches support smaller branches and smaller branches
support leaves. The network rewards the app developers and the app
developers rewards or allow for the reward of content creator
(producers).
K.I.S.S.
2 Likes
Just to throw it out there, it’s not a matter of PtP being unworkable on the network, it’s a matter of why would you exert the mental energy to do make it work. Because if you take the base safenet, with safecoin being awarded to farmers for computation/bandwidth/data providing, you already have what you need to sell the app devs. Once you get the app devs onboard with effectively having a free back-end that can scale to the entire planet, you already have people creating the next facebook/google/etc. and from there, you already have mass adoption.
IIRC, the entire point behind App dev/PTP rewards is so that app/content producers can be paid for their work. A cursory google search however shows plenty of app devs and content producers are already making boatloads of money on the current internet, which doesn’t have a reward system built in. As such, both features are both unnecessary and will mainly serve to add possible weaknesses to the network that can be gamed or attacked.
5 Likes