When your slogan is fixed, it sounds like soviet-era wall street propaganda bullsh*t to me.
It wasn’t presented as my slogan, but as a counter point to the equally flimsy “a currency backed by cat videos”. Both are valid, but only together are they useful. Each reveals the lack of useful substance in the other, and together they point to the need to expand our understanding.
I find the arguments about subjectivity and “real” value flawed so far. In my opinion value emerges as a kind of collective coherence of a group, in this case all of us, expressed through each of our individual subjective actions such as watching cat videos, liking posts, visiting URLs, tweeting, voting in polls etc., and SAFEnetwork provides us with an opportunity to measure this in a way that while not perfect, might at least be far more robust than current models of production and distribution.
To accurately quantify value is impossible because we all do so with different priorities (cat videos versus cancer cures), but all are in the mix. So instead we compromise. Monetary value is one such “measure”, and works quite well, but as we know incentives distortion in how value is perceived and presented in the current system.
There is no perfect way to decide the value of content, but in the present system, it is co-opted by people who seek to control the creation and distribution because, by making monetary value our measure, we create an incentive for this to happen. For profit.
I therefore understand the wish to keep the network “clean” in this respect, and I don’t disagree. It is a valid concern. I don’t want to jeopardize the network by including in it things that put it at significant risk. However, let’s not turn away from things that might be game changing in a positive sense, until we have throughly examined those risks and can decide whether or not they are worth taking. That’s why I’m asking for those who feel the risks are too great to elaborate them - I’m hardly the best person to do that, when my focus is on the potential benefits. I’ve elaborated those, and nobody has challenged the benefits. So I think its the risks that need understanding at this point.
I merely don’t accept that “there are risks” alone is sufficient argument for not trying PtP/PtD when for me, there is an opportunity to design an alternative system of rewards, that (as with a monetary system) won’t perfectly reflect value, but might do so adequately at the same time as removing the mechanisms that are currently causing very damaging distortions.
We have media of all kinds manipulating consumption by a small elite who decide what will be offered, promoted, advertised for their benefit, while disregarding the impact this has in so many other respects. Not least, excluding much of human creativity from view, to create scarcity, push up price, and consume every drop of human attention possible.
We should certainly consider whether PtP/PtD is an accurate reflection of value, but we should not compare it with an ideal. We should compare it vwith how well the current system functions in this - and other - respects. Let’s compare the whole with the whole, and let’s make sure we are fully aware of how the current system operates and the impact it has.