Poll: Should MaidSafe implement PtP (Pay the Provider)?

I think I agree with @Traktion that tipping would really only reward value whereas PtP could reward some scammy stuff (along with the stuff that does actually have value.) When I go on youtube I don’t assume content is good just because it has a high number of views. In fact many of those are just clickbait and not very good. I can’t really tell you if its a good video or not until I watch it and then I give a like or subscribe to their channel if it’s really good. I guess with PtP more of the reward would be focused on the value by doing something like subscribing. Like I really enjoyed this one bit of content so I will now check out more of what you have to offer. Donating doesn’t pay for anything up front though, so it’s not like they get rewarded just cause I try them out.

How about this addition to PtP… there is a like button you can either press or not press after viewing the content and the reward is based on number of likes not number of views. And ya this is where @neo chimes in and says so we just PtD for apps but not content providers? Actually I would say it’s better if developers also only get paid if people confirm they like the app after having a chance to use it.

If something like that was implemented,then maybe it should also be scaled by number of views. One items could have 100 likes and 100 000 views, while another item has 100 likes with 90 views. The first one with few likes and lots of views is likely to be low quality, click bait or something similar.


ya I would agree with something like reward=likes * views. Maybe with some additional math in there were it scales up even more with bigger numbers. maybe we need another variable of “dislikes” that somewhat cancel out likes to, so like you said if 100k ppl watch your video and only 100 liked it… I am sure more then 100 disliked it :stuck_out_tongue: You really need to have a good number of both before I think ok that was something special that should really get lots of reward.

1 Like

Since a like would mean you need to write some data, you are actually paying a small amount. So it’s basically a kind of microtipping then.


haha a fair point. Ok so if you have absolutely no safecoin all you can at least contribute is views. That is still going to generate income but only on the condition that the “jury” of people that can afford to do likes also confirms this is good quality and not clickbait. I am saying make both likes and views a factor in determining the rewards. Think of a like as opening a door. Now more people can walk though and we will reward based on how many people we find on the other side. The more open the door is the more opportunity there is to find people on the other side but they still have to choose to go though also.


This brings back memories of this post I made a while ago Who pays for high demand data?

Even without PtP I don’t think every PUT is going to be getting equal value for their safecoin. Some will just be higher demand then others and cost network resources. The vibe I got in that thread is we aren’t going to really worry about sally got more then tom and just focus on if tom is happy with what he got before looking over at sally.

Without getting political it’s interesting that you have that perspective. I’m still highly in favor of testing it out in a test environment and seeing what happens. Respect your opinion though. As far as testing goes we have nothing to lose and if it doesn’t work there are other options even if they might not be a first pick.


We must be talking completely across eachother. I don’t see at all how this is relevant to the PtP discussion, let alone an argument against it.

Yep, so, the possibility for illegitimate gains and encouragement of wasteful/useless/deceitful stuff is what makes you go no.
I’m going to be a bit pain in the ass still:
Are you an absolutist, or is there a certain percent slippage that can be tolerated?
I myself wouldn’t think there’s enough data to know where the “break even” is.

OK, that was… a bit short. You still on your mobile? :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Haha this makes me smile. I don’t say it’s not true, I just enjoy that view and expression.
To me, those things are not really socialistic, it’s a bit like calling the ventilation system in the car socialistic because it distributes the cool air to all passengers. Yeah, sure it does. But… you know :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

@andyypants and @intrz, now we’re talking, some ideas!
So, that is an interesting way to try to utilize the microtipping as an indicator of what is appreciated content, and thereby allowing that complementary mechanism to be used while (to some extent) avoiding illegitimate rewards.
It’s worth looking into more I would say…


And you know, already before I thought this is interesting because I don’t think it applies to PtP only.
I mean, we have not reached the end of times now. There will come plenty of new ideas and inventions. But the problem with knowing if and how they will work in SAFENetwork, will many times be equally hard as it would with PtP.
So, that is actually something to consider. How many things will we not end up doing because we will not be able to evaluate, or how many disasters will we roll out for the same reason?

So, makes me think there needs to be some quite large scale voluntary data sharing for the purpose of evaluation of such things (for example, or some other thing). I don’t know if that has been up for discussion before?


yes I think we have toughly flogged this dead horse of a debate between donations vs PtP… now lets come together and see if there is a way to get the merits of both sides. I don’t think just being like there is PtP and there is donations and they act in separate silos is the way though. If there is PtP I am only going to donate for exceptional content and just figure anyone else is still getting the PtP reward. Now if donation is the gatekeeper to getting a PtP reward I would hit that like button and spend a small amount doing so much more often (like any time I enjoyed it at all and didn’t feel scammed.)

It is relevant as Ptp is pitched as helping to fund content creators. I’m suggesting tipping will do a better job of this and will be less dangerous for the network.

I just don’t think it will sufficiently reward content creators relative to those who will seek to abuse the system.

The truth is, just because someone accesses some data, it does not mean they value it. Incentivising quantity of hits over quality of content, with the hope of some quality getting caught in that net, just seems flawed.

Moreover, if we pitch quantity as a reward, you can bet your life that adversaries will try to profit from it. This will form another attack vector and even caching has its limits - any chink in the armour will be mercilessly exploited. Is that a fight really worth having? I say no.

Bingo! It may be short, but I don’t have the inclination to sift through the thread and repeat it again.

If you are convinced that countermeasures will thwart any abuse, that’s great. I have strong doubts.


To me this reads like “I think the right shoe does a better job than the left shoe”. When to me, they are both needed to keep both right and left foot dry. Even if you happen to have an odd pair, where one has better ergonomics than the other :wink:. Well, what ever, we’ll leave that alone.

To me it’s never been a ‘vs’. These are not mutually exclusive mechanisms, on the contrary they cover different spectra. And additionally, as has been mentioned, could be combined to mitigate abuse.

I’m trying to go a bit deeper than just “I think” here. You know, lead stuff into evidence, or just dig as far as can be dug. I’m not much for just taking stuff at face value. But OK.

I don’t see that anyone is saying that. But rather that among those that do access, there could be plenty enough as to be able to use it as an indicator for valuing it.
Where we differ here is that I am trying to find out more about this. You seem to say “nah, not possible, not worth it”.

Hm :thinking:, I think you missed a lot of what I was writing. I’m not convinced of very much I think (a few things though, on a more abstract level, not related to this topic :slight_smile:)
I’m looking at finding out exactly what concerns people have, and see what of it is well founded. Hard to device any counter measures without it.

The really horrible arguments so far against it, have been that it feels immoral and unreasonable, that some other mechanism will do a better job, that it’s a socialistic bad idea destined to fail.

Then a couple of better ones (some with unrefuted counters still lingering):

  • With a sophisticated decentralised overlay network it could potentially be gamed.
  • Audience whales are already making profit in that way (but do they really steal that profit from the producers or would they be benefited as well, or at least status quo? No more reasoning provided on that yet.)
  • Click baiting exists today, and it is assumed it would exist then as well thus supporting unwanted content and actions. (Microtipping as an indicator for GET count validity was suggested, and IMO that could absolutely have the effect of correctly allocating the GET rewards).
  • Knowing that PtP exists could have adversary effect on people’s willingness to tip (I suggested there’s probably only psychological research to go to for verifying that, so that was a bit of a challenge. As I said, I’m looking to go a bit deeper than just “I think” here.)

Of your own four points, 1. and 2. are really the same (and included above).
Nr 4. Would be necessary since not all producers are alive to upload. Other than that it goes into audience whale argument, which is also mentioned above.

Leaves us with nr 3.

  1. Background GETs does seem like a way some extra GETs could be siphoned. But now we’re talking sites that would get quite low reputation.

So, this here would be parameters to take into account when starting the real job of designing the solution. It’s kind of a brute spec of things that must be avoided.


I think the psychological research on this is worth looking into :wink: I haven’t had much luck digging up a study on if PtP influences peoples willingness to donate. I think there might be though. I am just struggling with what concept to call PtP in my search since that’s pretty much a term we just made up here lol. Will keep looking at report back if I find anything.

Phew, today was a ‘hard day at work’ on safenetforum.org :sweat_smile:
@happybeing, I absolutely did not stick to what we were saying in the dev forum, on focusing on what’s important for release and adoption :joy:
Nonetheless, quite fun, and not entirely useless IMO.

Hey, cool :slightly_smiling_face:
So, I would imagine like studies on gaming theory, cooperation, altruism things like that. It’s not my area so those are probably still way too general. I think someone in that area would be able to associate the phenomenon to relevant sociological studies.


I took 4 years of psychology and I still can’t think of a concept that is exactly like PtP. Yes there are some that intersect but don’t capture it exactly. There might be info for us there but I warn you now I know there will be reasons it might not represent our situation because it is not exactly the same variable

1 Like

There’s always a gap between intent and action because we are more than our thoughts. My gap in that is enormous, and I’m not exaggerating :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Yes, and this whole scheme is impossible to predict - the network I mean - so we should plan, test, review etc

We’re very privileged to be in at this point of something like this. I’ve enjoyed watching this discussion because it has demonstrated, like many before it the qualities of this community and the values we share, even though we often have very different perspectives and motivation.


how about this one https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12208-013-0104-x It says there is no difference if you are in the group or alone which seems to contradict my theory that diffusion of responsibility would reduce willingness to donate. It does however say that individual attitudes about if this WAS their personal responsibility or not did impact willingness to donate.


Interesting. It’s quite near. Initially I’m thinking that donating to world hunger related charity, could be quite differently perceived, compared to tipping for a performed service (blog article, music, art, instructional video, code).

But tipping and PtP would span all that as well as any charity stuff. I just think charity is a bit of a niche thing.

Anyway, that’s still pretty darn close of a subject. I think there’s tonnes of research like this.

1 Like

there are certainly lots where being in a group or not being in a group is a variable they study. This is the closest thing to our new concept of PtP IMO. Maybe I should look for other contexts where its more just about something nominal like should I push the lever harder harder if we are trying to get the group to reach a certain total force? I don’t know that’s not exactly it either. I agree we need to look at something more akin to “liking” something online. Maybe there is one of exactly that. Not finding anything right at the top of the stack. Will dig deeper tonight. help me out by thinking of synonyms of “liking something online”