Proposal: Pay per "Like"

The more control for the end user the better. This keeps power dispersed and keeps open access.


I may be wrong, but I believe that´s some old school thinking. Your proposal kinda makes sense, but it is quite complicated, plus, it has the side effect that the money that I pay gets lost on the way to its receiver to a very high degree.

What happens if likes and dislikes are free? Yes, there will be spamming. But what if that won´t matter in the future, because the mere quantity is not relevant anymore, but the value (where value is determined by the reputation of the correspondent account)? I tend to think that people adopt to the fact that in digital environments identities have a very different value and react to it (care less for numbers, care more for the network).

I don´t think that voting should be carried out on the core network and I don´t see how it should be carried out functionally. How is i.e. the ammount of Safecoin determined needed for a like? 1 Safecoin could well be worth 1000$ one day in the future while now it´s only pennies. Since the system inherently doesn´t know anything about its value a proper value cannot be determined algorithmicly.

Instead you can do everything on a platform and have people paying for their likes. I don´t see why it should be done overly complicated.

1 Like

Hmm I really like the walletmark idea. +1

How do we prevent people from spamming likes?

1 Like

How bout not caring about the number, but instead about the people behind?

Paying for Likes taints them. Likes are suppose to be genuine without any monetary attachment. As a pure quantitative example, I don’t give to charity expecting some money back. If I did, the value of the gift is reduced by the amount received. And how does one quantify Likes? Is liking a pet owner’s dog’s new haircut more valuable than liking a new movie that a producer took years to make?

Do we get paid for voting for our representatives? Absolutely not. That would fall into the category of bribery; paying for votes.

And would there be a market for Likes? Can I sell my Like to the highest bidder? Can I buy them for my new web promotion?


I think this would require a solution to the Proof of Unique Human Problem, which has been discussed extensively on the forum. The short answer is that whoever comes up with a solution to this should win the Nobel Prize.


It’s not payment for likes, but payment by likes. When you “like” something you pay the uploader a little SafeCoin. Not the other way around.


I think that Paying for Likes means that the person whose content is liked gets paid.

And all we have to to prevent selling likes is make liking content cost something for the user. Then, the user is an idiot unless they get paid more than they give. And if you set it so that the network takes a little surcharge, then it will be unprofitable to pay for Likes.


Not at all, that´s again ‘old’ thinking imho. In digital environments unique identities don´t matter because they don´t exist. What matters is unique contribution. Identifying real objects (real identities) is hope- and senseless. In digital environments webs of trust and relations develop that are unique and have a value comparable to material entities. The difference is: you as a user cannot let a system determine what is valuable and what´s not - you have to make the judgement on your own.

For instance: Currently a video on Youtube displays valuation based on Youtube´s method of identification (being a member or no member). It´s very easy to game that system and in fact it is done in many many cases. Buying views and thumbsups is cheap on a scale where it doesn´t affect rewards and where you use it mainly to suggest that you have a popular video. So, why would that number mean anything to you? It´s highly intransparent and therefore worthless - in fact, it´s only worthy if you trust on the reliability of Youtube. It´s centralistic thinking.

Contrary, you can also display only the likes/dislikes that people gave who you judged to be reliable (friends). You could even have different categories of reliabilities - but in the end it would be you who defines the level of trust depending on your experience of interaction.

It´s obvious that this doesn´t serve as a model to pay out globally - i am also not a proponent of that idea. I believe that on network level only those payments should be handled that are needed to sustain the system. Content IS relevant and SHOULD BE rewarded, but it´s not part of what needs to be done to sustain the network.

1 Like

Sorry, I thought you were responding to the OP. What kind of payment system are you referring to or would this be more of a social status thing? That you know that the people you like, like you back?

Well I was, but that´s more to demonstrate why I don´t think that it is senseful to reward anything but farming at network level as I have also argued above.

So this:

Actually Means this:

Ah, Thank you for clarifying that.

I guess you can read that I wrote more than that post and if you´re interested in what I meant then look it up. Anyway, I think you got my point.

He brought a good point. You see it in twitter and facebook. Politicians, etc pay people to like them in order to appear more popular.

A song uploaded might be so so in quality, but if the singer’s agent buy likes then the sheeple think the song is much better and they like it (pay for) the song. Amplification “attack” using human nature. THe agent buys 10,000 likes and sees 100,000 likes from the sheeple

So for 10% investment they reap the other 90%

1 Like

Just want to clarify some things about the proposed idea. Maybe it will help.

Originally, payment for “LIKE” was not meant to pay the producer. It was meant to post your opinion on a Network Level, regardless of the APP used to GET the content. Example: I pay 1 SC to let the Network know I like/support/approve of this content (walletmark). This is why SAFE Like is different from an APP Like.

The 1 SC, charged by the Network, is taken as revenue for providing this service.

It can be that simple, and nothing more… however I added the “farming attempt” as a way to indirectly fund PtP.

Because I suspect it’s more convenient for people to 1-Click-Pay for their opinion (LIKE), compared to manually entering X amount each time they want to TIP a producer. They could set a default TIP amount. But honestly, I give different TIP amounts depending on the product/service provided. This is why I consider TIPS a separate function.

IMO, I think it could be very useful for…

  • Consumer Reviews as a Network wide metric.
  • Producer bonus income, depending on SC farming availability.
  • Network income, helping to add more SC to the farming pool.

I’ve read the objections of those who disagree. All I can say is… If the masses “like” this feature, they will use it. If not, then it collects dust and fades out of use.

1 Like

And, oh yeah BTW this:

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, the bandwagon argument is the most poingant and I use it quite often (even if it’s not exactly true) for a reason - because it works.

So any one of these several ways to game the system will be instantly exploited for a popularity boost. End of story.

1 Like

I don’t really see the use of reviews that can be gamed. That’s not really about your proposal, it’s against reviews on the web in general. People find them useful because they (still) act naive towards the judgement of complete strangers (not talking about elaborated reviews where you can make a judgement about the reviewer by reading the review though).

My questiona here are:

  • If it’s easy to game, why should it be implemented? Giving naive people a reason to download a infected file that has been upvoted?
  • How is the price determined decentrally? You refer to 1SC, but what if that turns out to be 1 EUR? Who decides to lower/raise the fee?
  • On which interface would users give the like command or display the reviews.
  • And finally: why does it have to be done on network level if it can be done on app level? On social networks the chance to really reward the producer and not the uploader is much higher due to transparency.

The Walletmark Tipper (Plug-in)
The name needs a little work. But I think the idea has real potential. Our most used “medium” to explore the internet is browsers (Firefox, Chrome, etc). So a plug-in fits nicely.

Credit to @neo for the browser plug-in idea.

So how does it work?
Every request from SAFE is done through a GET. If the Network also provides a “walletmark” meta data, the plug-in would know who to reward for the content.

What does this mean?
I means you can TIP Safecoin directly to the producer of the content, regardless of the website you found it on.

Can this be used with (Pay per LIKE)?
Yes, it would cost the minimum SC per LIKE. Payment goes to the Network. Right now 1 SC is the smallest unit transferable. This may provide a useful metric for other people using the plug-in to see what others think. If SC is made divisible then the smallest unit of that will be used.

Can I spam LIKES?
Not without costs, and not using the same account. If you LIKED a particular content, then tried to LIKE it again, the Walletmark Tipper would say, “you already LIKED this content.”

Why Pay-Per-Like instead of FREE likes?
That depends on each person’s view of it’s usefulness.
I would say Pay-Per-LIKE is more serious because of the costs involved. At the same time, consumers indirectly support the producer of that content by triggering a “farm attempt” for the producer. In addition to that, the SAFE Network benefits by gaining more SC added to it’s income pool.

What if I want to reward more?
Then you click the TIP button and enter an amount, unless you have a default amount already set up.

The Walletmark Tipper provides a way to PtP anywhere on SAFE, at any time, and provides a useful “like” metric for other plug-in users. This means content also shows the total amount of “paid for” likes from other users.

Won’t big marketing companies abuse this (i.e. paying for LIKES)?
I hope so, because they would add more SC to the income pool. Then everyone (farmers, producers) would have more to farm.


Do you have no ethical problems with this? :smiley:

Compared to what already exists, vote rigging, mass marketing (AD spamming), fake accounts. I think this would be an improvement…

I was going to add a future version, where plug-in users could add a “trusted source” filter (friends, family, expert reviewers), that would mitigate fake LIKE spam from unknown sources. But I’m trying to keep a minimum functionality to start.

1 Like