To quote from your draft:
The PUT Incentive Model is designed to solve many problems, and most recently many have come to the surface. Issues regarding:
APP reward mechanism
Pay the Producer
are all affected in some way by this proposal. This is intended to set
the stage for a fair network, wherein all who participate in their
various functions (Farmer, APP Dev, Content Creator, End-User) will all
have an opportunity to benefit and benefit from the network.
Once an APP uploads to the network on the behalf of the user -
it will initiate an action similar to a farming attempt - and either
recieve a reward or not based on the outcome of that attempt.
The assumption is that the rewards will all be pooled together to
eventually be split out to the devs and the content creators. The hope
is that this will incentivize community building as well as development
contributions in the race for a bigger rewards pool per APP.
5) Content Copying
This proposal does not aim to solve the problem of copying content by
slightly amending to or altering the file. As such it is still
vulnerable to any exploitation of copied content that PtP would be. This
is still an issue that needs to be solved. (Specifically both
Watermarking and Proof of Unique Human require further investigation for
a solution to be found).
For the time being, I would assert that this would be most
effectively done at the APP level, with some sort of decentralized
moderation technique. But that is beyond the scope of this document.
6) What if I want to move my content to another APP?
Well, that’s the thing about content, once it’s there it’s there (unless it’s copied - see above). It is then consumed.
If it needed to be formatted in a separate way in order to allow it
to be accessed by another APP, that may constitute a change such that
another PUT would have to be issued to resubmit it to the network
thereby giving credit to a separate APP. I’m not sure.
This is more of a technical question about the implementation of which I haven’t even nailed down yet.
Keep in mind though, content can be rewarded by any way that is made
possible by the system. The content itself is APP-independent. This is
exemplified in the ability for the information on the APP that submitted
the PUT on behalf to be destroyed once the data is PUT and the APP
Sorry and with all due respect. I think this idea is not well thought out and heading into that weird territory, just like all of the other PtP models that attempt to directly manage this.
Now listen I know you think this is not a PtP model.
But allow me to explain. Which I agree I should have done better earlier.
Before I do let me state it is not just this idea by the way. It is all of them. Any idea that revolves around the network attempting to involve itself in the rewarding of content creators OR app developers for their users content directly is just silly (I believe you called it ‘on behalf of the user’)
I agree we should reward app developers as I believe you do @smacz but it should be based on work that they do and transactions like downloads and maybe even reviews.
Keep it simple stupid (KISS).
It could be based on use, downloads or some other public metric which we already know works well a la iStore and Google Play.
But to think that we can possibly manage the rewarding of user-generated content to app develoeprs (I believe you called it content PUTS or something like that, correct me here).
You are talking about art, music, literature, photography, videography as if the subject is not already a complex mosaic of legal issues and now you want to attempt to manage that and make it even more complicated? And you dont think content creators will be upset?
Go for it.
If you can do it and it succeeds (it wont) it would be a world first and it would solve all of the worlds content, art, music, video and literature payment, ownership, copyright and legal problems.
App developers should be rewarded for their valuable contributions only. they built the app, they manage it, they get rewarded for that by the network and we all agree because it eventually benefits all of us with more and more people using the network.
But user-generated content on their sites is now a separate topic by default because you have introduced a separate entity - the user who generated the content in the first place AKA the producer.
Example of what process could get rewarded IMHO: App downloads, use and or reviews.
Potentially you could maybe go one step better and have it set on a timer or use counter but that would make it even more complex and open for gaming by app devs.
Example of what process should not get rewarded: the creation and upload of the app/site to the network because then you would have jerks uploading all sorts of useless crap. Certainly not based user-generated content uploads by the app because user content is user content. The relationship is between the user and the app developer and SAFE is a third party at this point.
So the question now becomes how do we decide to incentivise rewards for content generators who are not app developers?
One idea might be to rank the app by one of several potential ranking methods.
You could use a simple review ranking method where content generators are asked to rank the apps ability to reward them. If they review this as high collectively the app is ranked one metric higher than those that do not meet this criteria and therefore are rewarded at a higher rate based upon this second level.
Or you could rank it based on NETWORK authentication of the apps proof of payment.
I am thinking out loud here so forgive me.