Should content be subsidized by the SAFE Network?

Yes, sometimes there are tax breaks for businesses, but —

It is debatable if that is a good idea – in many cases it backfires and costs more than the revenue it generates. Also often this facilitates cronyism…

Second it isn’t done blindly. Those tax breaks come with conditions. Location, zoning, etc. And they are only offered to certain types of content – If I want to build a football stadium, I am probably going to get some massive breaks. If I want to build a Brothel - probably not.

Nobody gives tax breaks blindly to anybody who asks.

2 Likes

But the fact remains that it happens (supposedly) for the right reasons. Our mission here is to find those right reasons in the context of the SAFE Network.

EDIT:

Autononimity FTW! (I don’t think autononimity is a word, but you get what I’m saying)

It doesn’t matter — Even if it is stupid cronyism, it is likely to be there.

For example a PtP network is going to support larger files that require more GETs over small files that will need 3 gets.

Why? No reason really, except that is how it works because that is how it works, and it would be a lot of trouble to engineer it differently.

But do the tax credits exist in the real world because cronies want to get paid? I suspect so. "If you pay me, I will build my stadium here – if not I will elect somebody who will pay me, or I will find someplace where I can elect somebody to pay me. " As such – it would be stupid to point to the real world as an example of how it could work in SAFE – Because it is just corruption… And really that is the bulk of the reason that SAFE is considering it. The Cronies want paid their cut… And they are lobbying hard!

3 Likes

I completely agree when put in the context of a PtP (content creators) and GET-based reward system.

EDIT: Deleted follow-up question as it was off-topic re: PUT Incentive Model.

I mean, there were even Bitcoin miner on Smartphones - sure, not at all efficient, but if installed on 1 Mio. smartphones they can make some pennies at nearly no cost for the app creator - and it´s much harder to identify than a secret farming bot obviously.

I see a big difference between a native reward and an app rewarding mechanism as it has been proposed in N99 and my Powerparty concept: you choose to become part of the network and you choose when you reward, who you reward and why. If the network turns out to be flawed for some reason (massive abuse by some person) you simply switch to a fork where things are handled better. This could be done with SAFE as well, but then rewarding content would be a factor of instability rather than stability.

I personally think that users should natively have the ability to approve or flag content, however, at no cost and invisible to all users, but those who you add to your personal circle of trust. This is imho the only way to grow real experience and a network of mutual checks. I see and like your intentions, I just tend to believe that once you get money into the equation things get messy.

My apologies, I was talking about APP rewards, and it appears that you were talking about content rewards. I’m really off-topic in this thread.

But I agree with you when it comes to PtP!

1 Like

Probably my misunderstanding :wink:

1 Like

This is an inaccurate metaphor as taxes are coercive and crowdfunding is voluntary. I’ve never heard of someone being thrown in jail or having their property stolen for not donating to a crowdfund.

SAFE is about the decentralization of power of the internet. Ultimately I do not think the network should be dictating terms to the end user but rather simply exchanging resources with them.

I think reputation should be based on the law of attraction more than approval or disapproval. So more spherical than linear. You bring close to you those you want and push away those you don’t. Those of like mindedness end up clustered together like groups of little soap bubbles.

…and neither you nor anyone or anything is going to change that.

Attraction is an abstraction of requests. The network cannot evaluate attraction.

Sure it can. Build an array. Ring 0 is right next to you, ring 1 is one measure out, ring 2 is another measure out, etc etc. Think Zoro and the concept of bring people “into your circle”. When people move people “away” from them they simply promote them a measure on their array. If they want to move them in a different direction in their space, sphereically speaking, they simply create a new array; because of course people have different relationships and hold different people and values at different orbits away from themselves. Create an interface for the user so they can adjust how close people are orbiting in relation to them (that is the permissions associated with each point on the array and moving users along the arrays) in relation to them and you’ve got an attraction system set up.

And did I ever say I was attempting to change that?

See, and what you describe is what I said it is - an abstraction of requests. Or differently: a cultural abstraction, made by humans - in this case by you, QED. The network can evaluate relations, it cannot evaluate meaning (ie reputation). That´s why the network should mess around with meaning, this has to be left to users and users only. Your proposal is only a way how YOU define reputation (or any programmer who creates a correspondent algorihm) for others/taking control from the users.

1 Like

Such is the nature of symbolism and language. But what makes my method any better or worse than anyone else’s reputation system? If you’re saying reputation systems should be left to the app level then I quite agree with you.

2 Likes