But if they are going to go ahead with it and they will at least add something into their terms of using the API that they should implement a tipping or revenue sharing model for content that way you’re not half-assing it and instead going balls to the walls and saying we are different, we support all app developers and all content creators.
This way you come across as a more complete system and you support all contributors.
On that note… anyone who wants to donate to this legendary form of comment content send beer money in form of MAIDSAFE coins to: 126fuQWQq3hBoRitMc73XginhqRtwgfdvz
A content maker is not even on the same playing field as an app maker, If they was they would be world famous and would not need safe network.
An app developer has skills in demand and easy choose take a 200k a year job, An app developer will choose to use there time to create an app in rust because they believe in the success of safe network.
AS when safe network is released many core developers will most likely create apps, the ones whom put in the hard yards.
I think this is really insulting them, because they are here for the long run, and not some artist is here today and gone tomorrow.
No one is comparing the values of content producers versus app developers other than you my friend and if you asked most people myself included you would be told they are both valuable.
In fact in many many cases they compliment one another.
Think of some of the worlds largest sites and apps, most of them are user-generated content driven. Youtube, Facebook, Google, Linkedin, Reddit, Twitter… I could go on like this all day and as to your 200K a year app developer thoughts, maybe you should consider how many writers, musicians, video producers etc make millions from their websites and videos.
Both are valuable and both should be rewarded. The question is how you do it though and I believe MS should keep it simple.
All they need to do is continue doing what they are doing and then
place the responsibility on the app developer to either offer shared
revenue model or a tipping model.
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 reward or allow for the reward of content provider
(producers).
If you want to have your say you should vote here:
Dude there are content providers who ARE world famous. And isn’t the SAFE network supposed to be the internet 2.0? Moreover many app developers are outright anonymous. Not all app developers are famous. Not all apps, even useful apps, garner tons of attention.
Good luck making awesome apps without artists and content providers to design graphics, sound and all the goodies for them. And I think the point here is that app developers ARE content producers.
And maybe we’ll get a set of core artists devoting art to the network. Or a PR group. Or bloggers or any other kind of content providers. Or have we forgotten about the need for marketing the network. Sure we can build SAFE but if no one knows about it what’s the point? And if it looks horrible and has a terrible UI again no one will use it. Artists that are here today and gone tomorrow? Well I’ll tell the bounty coders you have such contempt for their work.
I think you need to be able to veto or switch off the PtP otherwise you risk attention whoring like ads and sponsored media even with honest up voting. I can see a base line, but its much more important to be able to pay only if you want and exactly the amount that reflects your valuation of an offering. Consider it an advance on future works. I see how universal pay drives open access but also see that farming drives the advance of the physical network. Let us also remember that content liberation or free speech is fine and what industry calls piracy is an infinitesimal concern relative to taxation. Taxes are backed by nukes, piracy or whining about too much open access is only backed by bribery and parasitic middle men. If your content is worth something the public will support you its only the piracy clowns getting in the way that work to cut your take. They dont make money if they cant create content scarcity. Old pc game software was still thriving, even if only those who could afford it paid.
I think this is simple. The reason I think its simple is it seems there is a false dichotomy here. Just because the SAFE NETWORK doesn’t pay content creators doesn’t mean YOU CAN’T DEVELOP A PLATFORM on Safe to pay them.
This is also reflected in another false premise: i.e. that devs and content creators are equal. In a general sense of course this is true. But in regards to the Safe network it is definitely false. Devs are a SPECIAL KIND of content creator as far as the network is concerned. A video maker is the same as a document writer is the same as a webpage designer. All content creators. But without devs you have NOTHING.
You can have Youtube without crazy cute cat videos. But you CANNOT HAVE crazy cute cat videos without youtube (or some clone). Devs provide the youtube platform and I believe that since devs are an important part of the network, without them no apps, incentivizing their content creation is justifiable. Because by incentivizing their content creation you have the potential to exponentially increase content creation (and thus adoption) in general. No other class of content creators has that effect on the network. You make a viral video, but that doesn’t mean more videos will be made.
You make a killer game. Now more people are using the network. You make a youtube app. Now people have a place to upload their content. And because this is safe and not some monolithic giant corporate soul-sucking life-draining entity, YOU can create a content platform that properly incentivizes content creators. Right? You don’t clamor for the internet to pay pandora artists, pandora works that out with their artists. Safe is trying to become the next internet, it is a framework. Paying content producers is a level below the architectural design of Safe. App makers are an exception to this because Apps make up the network and incentivize its use and adoption. My $.02
The core dev team will be the app devs, I think it just insult to the dev team. Artist should sell there product as anyone else, I do not want hollywood crap, and the pop factory on the safe network sponging of my farms.
All these people is just copy each other and clone the same old rubbish.
The fact is no one pirates of a small private doco team, and most people are more then happy to pay for product.
What an opportunity for an artist to uploads there ware for pennies and being there forever without being taken down. What an opportunity for an artist but this is not good enough and want a bigger slice of the pie.
All the network needs to do is have the developers agree to certain terms when using the API and one of those crucial terms is you allow content creators to earn safecoin via you app either by a shared revenue model or a tipping or something else. Super simple.
Clearly devs are of value. Clearly you’d choose to donate to them, indeed probably donate heavily. That’s not the point. The point is value is subjective. In point of fact devs ARE content creators. Code IS content. You’re arguing that content that support the network is of greater value and therefore people owe the network a percentage. This is the same ideology as taxation. It’s the farmer’s pie in the first place not the content producer be they artist or developer.
Well god forbid we bruise someone’s ego. I believe David Irvine himself has acknowledge that coders aren’t special and are just another kind of content producers and just one facet of the community. Whether you want “hollywood crap” or not it’ll likely be uploaded to the SAFE network regardless like anything else. And there are many who would argue that “hollywood crap” deserves to be paid for just like devs. So as I’ve pointed out it’s a matter of subjective value. If we’re going to subsidize one kind of content production we should subsidize all kinds of content production. And since we can’t agree on value… well there is that altcoin idea.
I have 20k safe coin to spend on the network ready and waiting to pay for good content and products and services.
The reason I do not pay for content on the internet often is I do not want to use PayPal or credit cards over international borders.
I would be happy to pay for rust lessons or 3d model classes on the safe network.
I am not happy paying for a cutie kitten video, that my child stumbled upon.
I think 10% is not enough for an app developer, I would say give an app dev 20% and get some real world changing apps.
The farmer will come from the crypto- currency world there will be unimaginable people wanting to farm safe coin, these people will be the consumers of the network and want to pay for content.
As of just yesterday I spent a day trying to find good information on rust coding, I looked on you tube and found very little, if network was up and running I easy pay $20 dollars for a lesson or two in this area in safe coin.
What people want today is the knowledge, people want to know how to paint or how to 3d mold, or how to create a professional video.
A martial artist sell his craft by teaching the art and if he is lucky he may get a Hollywood deal.
go have look on youtube and see what video’s get million of views because of being famous, I do not want to fund these people because of sheep effect.
I prefer to fund a teacher, for education for my child, or doctor on call because my child is sick in the middle of the night.
I want to fund the apps whom give these people abilty to be as service.
My main point I want the farming awards to pay for this in the future. my farming effort will go back straight in artist pocket, or go back to the farmer for what i up load.
Yes but a teacher or doctor or tutorial creator IS a content creator and only proves my point. Value is subjective. Maybe instead of likes or subscribers people should buy someone’s altcoin.
Would the sheeple be willing to PAY for their cat videos? I doubt it. And if they are well then that’s their choice. People are stupid enough to eat at McDonalds and shop at Walmart after all.
So you disagree that devs represent a unique value to the safe network? Is it your contention that content creators are equal to devs? I think I can disprove this by simple way of extrapolation. Its clear that the core devs are central to the network, I think we can agree on that. But according to your reasoning. Core devs are no more important than regular devs (code is code, after all, and code is just content). Furthering the logic then, core devs must be no more valuable than content creators as well. But that is CLEARLY FALSE. We don’t even HAVE any content creators, but if we did (we technically do as they exist everywhere on the net), they would have no network to upload to. So by that simple exercise I declare illogical the idea that all content creators are created equal, they can’t be. The safe network is more valuable than the content creators because without it there is no where else for them to upload to with the guarantees that safe brings. This is, again, simple logic.
It only requires taking the abstraction one step further to prove, in my mind, the logic of paying devs. Because without them, again, no content creators can upload. If you disagree, I would like you to challenge/repudiate/defeat this simple logic. Not all content crators are created equal because some content creators need other content creators in order to create, that list is in order:
Core devs
devs
creators
In this case, the safe network does not want to leave the incentivization (is that a word?) up to the good will of user donations. Rather, they want to incentivize it directly. Given the obvious importance of devs it makes sense to do so. I want to reiterate this in order to be clear: it is my contention that the idea that all content creators are equal is FALSE, and thus the argument that ‘if you pay devs you must pay creators’ is also false.
Ah I think I see the problem: Value is subjective.
Value is NOT subjective here, I contend. Value is subjective at the ‘content creator’ level, because not everyone likes Jimmy Fallon or Jazz. BUT EVERYONE ON SAFE NEEDS APPS. No one will want to use safe as Internet 2.0 without useful applications. THAT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE VALUE. That is OBJECTIVE value, i.e. everyone agrees objectively that this is important (having apps) and is willing to finance it. Not everyone agrees that my tennis instructional video is useful, so they shouldn’t pay for it. Not everyone agrees that my word document is useful so they shouldn’t pay for it. BUT EVERYONE AGREES that we need apps. Right?
Its kind of like roads. I don’t pay for your car or your gas bill. But I do pay for the road you drive on. Why? Because (well aside from the gun in my back) I agree that roads are useful an necessary. So we all share the cost. What it appears to me that you’re doing is equating the usefulness of roads to the usefulness of cars. Cars are very useful, but you’re not going anywhere without a road.
So if maid safe team said yes will do this with the network, and my child is watching barbie you tube types of clips on the safe network that are in the millions of views, they should be paid as well as on the youtube…
I rather pay for content of my choosing from farming rewards then being forced to pay for viral barbie clips or a baby making a funny face…
No. Clearly they are. But unique value does not justify coercion. Nor does it negate the issue of subjective value. Different people would value devs differently.
It is my contention that devs ARE content creators and that these two groups are one in the same and therefore face the same issues.
So you argue that if one type of content requires another to be created or distributed. So you’re saying we should be paying Greece, Rome, Germany, Ireland/Scottland and a dozen other languages for use of the English language because it’s a derivitive of those languages? Or various Arabic counties for our number system? We’ve been building one type of content upon another kind of content, one form of knowledge upon another form of knowledge since the beginning of time. That’s just what’s happening here yet again. No we wouldn’t have barbecue without fire but then again the advent of fire is a far cry from barbecue or an internal combustion engine for that matter.
You’re arguing that one type of valued content should be subsidized while another type of content should not. Artists are just as skilled as devs are, so are writers and musicians. Are you saying these people should not be paid but programmers should? That these people are LESS valuable than programmers? Whether core devs are more or less valued should be left up to the market. Which ultimately would be a political decision BY the network to support the core developers financially.
I believe I proposed an idea whereby one would use subscription and incentivization and would not rely on “good will” in order to ensure voluntary interaction.
You have only argued your own opinion that a) devs are a higher value than every other kind of content creation. And I doubt all other content creators, or people in general, the world over would agree with you. Some do not value the creation of new apps or upgrades to the network as a whole above the creation of new artwork, or at the expense thereof. So b) This value you are attempting to convince others of is still not one to enforce on the rest of the network all over the planet.
If the ptp program doesn’t work because of subjective values but somehow you solve that problem then that would ALSO be able to be applied to devs. And IF people value devs as highly as you say then they’d be able to support them accordingly. Agree to pay a large percentage of farming rewards or buy a lot of devcoin.
So I would put forward that using coercion is the only way to incentivize devs and app creation either way.
SAFE is a product however it turns out to be designed. Buy it or don’t. But don’t pretend you are being forced to pay for something you don’t choose to.
The difference is quite clear. If you don’t particularly like SAFEword (like google docs) then the developer doesn’t get paid… If people do NEED that and USE it, the developer gets paid. But if the network doesn’t have that feature people are going to stay on the network that provides the services that they need – No Metcafe’s law.
Verses content where you might download stuff all for entertainment, and either like it or not but still waste the network’s resources, adding no additional functionality.
Are you a user of Windows then? In favor of corporate software that limits the freedoms of the end user? There’s no coercion? Please. If you’re so much in favor of the freedom of apps then why are you arguing to have farming percentages paid to devs hardcoded at the network level? There’s no reason you can’t write an app to send farming percentages to devs and other content creators. Any centralized authority is no different than a dictatorship government. Hardcode a set of rules and you’re writing an empire. Code is politics. Especially when we’re talking about something like the internet 2.0.
I bet the content providers that are farming safecoin to upload to the network would disagree with your assessment. Or all the fans that donate and buy content and merchandise in safecoin. Helping the network isn’t just about creating new apps or commits to core software updates. People stay on a network with content they enjoy. Also not all content is about “entertainment”.
Also the whole ptp program is to give other content providers the same payment abilites as devs which only highlights the fact that devs are just another form of content creator and it’s not fair to reward one kind of content creator and not others.
Nobody makes you use SAFE. There is no coercion. Coercion is when you must do something or men with guns come and put you away.
Apps don’t use that many resources in comparison. You can stream netflix 24 7. You may leave Word open but the cost will be nil.
Whatever the final product is, There are plenty of competitors up and coming. Find the one that doesn’t offend you and use it. All of them are going to be imperfect…
I am not. I would prefer a altcoin ecosystem. But that would require somebody spend a lot of time writing it, and how are they going to get paid exactly? Without developers the whole project dies. Money solves a lot of chicken and egg problems.
I do not think paying developers has anywhere near the disastrous effects of paying content because development doesn’t eat network resources at the rate that streaming media does.
I can take it or leave it, but the fact of the matter is paying developers has been in the plan for a very long time (From the time I first heard of it) - and paying artists and content creators is a much newer evolution, and I don’t think I have even seen it spoken of in videos or whitepapers etc. I may be wrong, but I don’t think so…
I was thinking about what was happening in the “safecoin-less network”/“massive inflation” thread and this one. I remembered a comment that I had made about safecoins being based on farmers and app devs providing “inherant value to the network”. I think I got that backwards:
Any APP that an app developer develops will have no value outside of the network.
Any content that a content creator creates will have value outside of the network.
The network provides inherant value to farmers and app developers in the form of safecoin because their actions would have no value without it.
So have someone write the altcoin system software, or any software for that matter, for the sake of writing the software and improving the network as opposed to getting paid. Is your purpose to get paid or is your purpose to improve humanity?
Is payment about rewarding service or is payment about the compensation of network resources? Wait it’s both! Because if $100 = 1Tb = x amount of safecoin = 2 weeks food at the grocery store or whatever then YES there’s a distinct connection. What does the resources required by the network have to do with anything? Devs put in tremendous amounts of TIME and time equals food bills, heating costs for a house and all kinds of other stuff. So how many gigs do their munchies cost the network? How much safecoin and badnwidth does their electric or heating bill cost? Time = gigs = safecoin = physical resources. It’s all the same thing. Moreover not all media is served in the form of streaming media. In fact the way SAFE is set up I don’t see much point in streaming media. Just download the video and have done.
Yes and I have opposed hardcoding paying developers from the start as it’s a form of taxation. All they’d need to do is add a checkbox and make it voluntary and I’d be fine. And just because something is an old or new idea doesn’t mean anything. What we’re going to keep an idea because it’s “traditional” or something?
Frankly I agree with you the altcoin system makes sense. Any voluntary system would make sense.
