Okay feel free to move this question to another topic or something if need be but I was just thinking. A lot of these apps propose to pay the end user to perform tasks but where does that money come from? I mean yes the developers get safecoin for developing the app but that isn’t infinite and it needs to go to developing the app. Where would revenue for contributing data to the app come from? That’s a question that’s often left out.
i think people would rather donate into a big pot that incentivizes people to work towards things / contribute to things etc than donate to “charity” etc vagueness. I think this is a sector that can see huge growth in the economies of the future
funny, a friend and i were just discussing this the other day for things like how homeless people collect bottles cans etc today. how we could use a similar system online to incentivize them with payments to collect stray animals etc and take them to shelters, or donate towards regular city cleanup etc.
i added a few words about this exact thing into the new pokedex page, but yeah that’s the basic idea what do u think?
Something quite worthy of discussion indeed.
Could you give an example (or two) of where you wondered who is to be paid and for what tasks?
it’s a big pot that anyone can donate into, run by smart contract? idk how those work but whatever. robot / maths managed.
and there are tasks assigned to the pot of cash, like get X (…insert (crypto)currency here…) for recycling / cleaning / collecting / saving / painting over of the cans / streets / stray kittens / graffitti etc.
probably the least detailed description of anything ever written, but i enjoy simply sparking ideas
Well let’s take the pokedex for example:
Ease of use is the most important feature, so when people upload pictures of a species, having an AI program that can sort and recognize those pictures
automatically would be amazing. Also, having a way to verify if an
uploaded species is new or not is important, to determine how much
payment that uploader deserves.
Discoveries of new species should pay handsomely.
Paid by whom or what? Where is the money coming from?
For from Free3D
3D blueprints are a new type of information, one made popular by 3D games, 3D movies and now with 3D printing. There are some free 3D models you can download today,
but most others are locked under copyright and IP laws, so you’d have
to give up a good deal of money to use them. An app like FREE3D could be
put on the SAFE Network, which holds all of the 3D models that have
ever been created, and lets everyone download them for free.
Furthermore, it pays the creators of the models instantly with SafeCoin,
based on popularity. Draw up a sculpture, upload it, & watch the money roll in
Again where is the money coming from? Pays the creators with what money? Do the users of the app pay a fee in order to use the app? If they do then it’s not free. Tanstafl.
Or for P2P mail yes there’s a reputation system needed and I love the idea but who manages and takes liability for risk for lost or stolen mail? Say you have 3 mail carriers relaying mail for a long delivery across country. Point A, B and C. Carrier A and B are good boys and gain good reputation but carrier C opens package and buggers off with the contents. So he loses reputation and even maybe gets kicked off the system. That doesn’t recover the loss of property. Who pays for that? We better get SAFE casino running fast. I have a suspicion there will be a high demand for insurance for lost mail so we’ll need bookies.
In short for every output of money there has to be an equal input amount accounted for. It has to balance out, even if it’s just theoretical, somehow.
If it’s paid out of the amount garnered from app development proportionate to get requests and farming rates then user returns absolutely cannot be promised set amounts because what goes out must be a smaller percentage than what comes in, else the app is going to go broke.
I believe that you are correct in seeing money as similar to energy: it is neither created nor destroyed. In other words, all the money exists in others’ wallets (the Network’s, app’s, or the users’) and it needs to come out of those wallets to be able to be put into yours.
An interesting inference that @whiteoutmashups makes is that the meaningfulness of the content is where it derives its value from. This means that it’s not the Network’s responsibility to dole out rewards (as it must do so equally), so we can cross that off of our list of subsidizers.
So then it’s left to the user’s and the app’s wallets. As you accurately stated, the app wallet is meant to be used the subsidize the app development. But what spurs app usage to create the opportunity for app dev rewards? Content. So we have a bit of a chicken and the egg problem.
The way to solve a chicken and the egg problem is to combine the two into one. This may seem super zen, but it’s not that difficult in this context.
Say a wallet kind is introduced - an app wallet. This wallet can autonomously allocate payments to the developers as well as rewards for content on the app.
That wallet, however, is under the governance of the app devs themselves. They are the ones who can decide (design/code) what ratio is paid out to themselves, and how much is paid out to the content that is put onto the app.
Now, you might say that they will only choose to pay themselves. There may be many situations where that would be the smart choice! For example, (my new favorite) SAFEsex. Why would any user need to be rewarded by the content that they put up?!?! I think the reward is in and of itself. wink
But for the casino example, the app wallet might want to pay out. The developers would then pay that out of their app wallet. OR, perhaps they would choose to only use the pool of the money that was put in. But which (similarly-functionable) app would be more popular, one where you could potentially win others’ money, or one where you could potentially win others’ money and some of the money in the app wallet?
This then can create a free market for an app with the best potential rewards. With FOSS ideals, forking an existing app and creating a better reward system would gain you more users, but you better be able to support the app, or else it’s back to the better functioning/more featureful/better maintained, but less rewarding app.
IIRC n99 acts according to this principal, although it sets the bar pretty high. If it becomes the de-facto music(?) content aggregation app though, that risk of low dev rewards per usage will have paid off.
The above is best used with a Pay Per PUT system, and I can go into that in detail later if need be. The above is the most pertinent aspect of that in regards to this discussion though.
But what about the user’s wallets?
Nobody said that all existing business models are going to be abolished by the Network. Paywalls and subscriptions will be infeasible (IMO) given the nature of the Network, but tipping, merch, etc. are all still valid ways to have a user-to-user payment economy.
An oblique to this discussion that is to be considered is the reputation that content creators aim to achieve. Hell, that’s why we have personas in the first place. Take this forum for instance - (without thinking that likes = money) how many “likes” do @dirvine’s posts get vs my own? (or any of ours for that matter) His reputation spurs users to action. It may not be monetary action, but it is action nonetheless.
Converting that into money, we see that an established name in the safe-sphere would be more successful in cultivating donors for crowdfunding, or patronage. Promising results can only work if you have a past to back you up. Establishing reputation at a lower reward rate can translate into bigger rewards if the content creator proves that they are able to provide quality content consistently.
The main thing to take away from this is that you can’t leave rewards for subjective content to the Network. So you need to find ways to take money out of others’ wallets and put it in your own. Provide a good or service and there will be a business model for you to use. Provide a quality good or service consistantly, and the possibilities are endless.
Lol I think all those sex workers would disagree with you. Put up a few live sex cams for profit and not get paid, you’ll be grumbling.
Notice how a lot of these apps are relying on each other in order to work, or work well? Kind of like we’re designing an ecosystem rather than an economy. Also notice how nature is decentralized but also how everything is interconnected and relies on everything else.
In terms of paying for content, and where does that money come from - money in this cases is safecoin. For the content to enter the safe network the safecoins had to be spent.
So just example:
Internal Safe Network Safecoin Pool = 100 safecoin
Someone’s wallet = 1 safecoin
farmers’ wallets = 0 safecoin
next, someone uploads a content for 1 safecoin.
Internal Safe Network Safecoin Pool = 101 safecoin
Someone’s wallet = 0 safecoin
farmers’ wallets = 0 safecoin
next, the people of the network target and request that content 1,000 times:
during this time the dynamic allocation system of the network transferred to the content producer the safecoin for making 1,000 get requests by now that content is in cache and earns no more safecoin for farmers or someone.
Internal Safe Network Safecoin Pool = 0 safecoin
Someone’s wallet = 1 safecoin
Farmer’s wallets = 100 safecoin
Farmers then sell to the market so someone can put more content. And if things get too skewed the output of safecoin pays more frequently or less frequently. (this is just an example to portray the ‘get’ request model, has not been based on actual tested results)
to add I hope that we get to test out these features because they’re capable of working out logically. Perhaps test how things go with a pay per put model and also demonstrate the pay on get model and the opportunistic caching putting a halt into the excessive withdrawal of safecoin through content. I think we’ll see only in the case where we test two networks and give equal access to each one. basically AB test the two models and see what happens.
I don’t actually think that we can A/B the two networks (GET vs PUT rewards) unless we do it for a substantial period of time. (read: years)
The economy would only flesh out after a long while, after content creators & apps are established, which would take a matter of time.
So no, I think we’ll need to get it right the first time. To do so, we need people to research, and do their homework, and have informed opinions, not gut feelings.
As part of the researching I’d recommend trying both, see what happens if you pay per put or pay per get
Follow the same process, upload your home birthday video recording, let 30 friends view it and see how the coins come back out.
If you can jackpot the system with pay per get; or if you can jackpot the system with pay per put we’ll see that empirically. And then make an informed opinion of which works better, and where the efficiency will need to go.
Anyone with a good idea to milk the system should wait till the network goes in production, so that the system can be milked in scale and changes cannot be introduced quickly.
In the testing period we’ll mostly have innocent testers and maybe several white hats.
This doesn’t change much in terms of testing, but some edge cases will probably remain untested. On the other hand I don’t think one can map them all out by pure contemplation. Unknown unknowns will remain in the system either way.
I think it’s important to not ask questions like where the moolah comes from when it comes to specific apps. How an app may or may not work isn’t a SAFE problem. Some cited examples (the OP) show that business case for the app hasn’t been worked out, but that doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the way SAFE rewards work, etc. The network isn’t being designed for those apps. It could be, but each app’s requirements have no bearing on it. I think if one wants to discuss options for SAFE rewards we have those topics. What should (could) be discussed here is if some particular app makes sense or not, given likely reward and farming parameters of the network.
I disagree. I believe that not only some in this community, but the devs who are currently writing the Safecoin Implementation RFC (@Viv & @Fraser) think that there’s something wrong with the way that SAFE rewards work.
The application developer rewards are seen as a good start to pay creators of applications on the app popularity, measured via its use. This design incorrectly identifies the measure of use as the number of GET requests the app carries out. A better solution should be found for this measure.
– Proposed RFC 0012 - Safecoin Implementation
I requested that the OP be split from it’s former place in the SAFE Apps Site thread specifically in order to address these exact issues. I saw my opening and took it.
What I believe should be discussed here is where the content reward money comes from - as the title states. As I’ve pointed out, I believe that it comes from the apps’ and users’ wallets.
User to user payments are easy and have been already considered when designing the network. App to user payments, not so much.
So the first half of the question is already solved for us. Unfortunately, the second half has broader implications, and to solve this question, other policies have to be considered first. These policies include the way SAFE app rewards work - both
- From the Network to the app devs (app wallet?)
- From the app devs (app wallet?) to the content creators
Without considering those policies deeply, we can not have a thorough understanding of where content reward money comes from.
Smacz I don’t know which part (everything?) you disagree with.
The original question was about @whiteoutmashups’ ideas on what might work. What I was saying is maybe some apps could work, but wouldn’t make money (be sustainable) if they only relied on the currently proposed reward schemes.
The OP, as far as I can tell, is not about how the SAFE works, but how those specific apps can be financed by the network.
I know you’ve raised the questions about how SAFE works, but that’s not what the OP is about. There will always be apps which can’t pay for themselves (pets.com). Maybe the way @whiteoutmashups envisioned they would work is wrong, maybe they could not produce meaningful rewards, maybe some app tweaks could make them profitable, maybe users would have to pay, etc. The network can never make all apps be free and pay for themselves.
I looked at the topic this topic was split from and didn’t realize that it happened on your request. I don’t have anything against the questions you raised be discussed in here too, although I still think there are existing topics that cover this topic and don’t mix up the issue of individual apps with coin economics.
Yes, rewards likely won’t work well because it’s not possible to limit “work” to what someone might find “useful” (remember reighley’ constant crusades against the “useless” porn). Bitcoin solves that by defining what useful work is (and people still call mining wasteful). There can be way to “justly” and objectively reward all authors and app owners when the system is based on simple rewards for data volume. Whichever way it’s done, it will always be gameable.
Dude, your base assumption about the question is dead wrong:
I disagree with the direction you presumed that this thread should develop:
Here we are talking about what business models exist for those who contribute data to an app. Not solely about how the apps get money.
HOWEVER, you must realize, that just like in nature, everything kinda intertwines. To understand one, you must understand the other.
In order to effectively discuss the matter of content reward money, we must have an understanding as close to complete as possible as to how the economics work, as well as the relationships among the Network, app devs, and content creators.
You cannot in good faith, limit a discussion such as this to specific apps. There are several overarching concepts that need to be explored before an understanding can start to take hold. I think the real scale of the question may be a bit larger than @Blindsite2k realized! Nonetheless, it was a great question.
Only then can we effectively, like @dallyshalla suggested, test the network with one or both models.
As I was saying, (putting aside
user <-> user payments for the time being) there is a fundamental question as to how the app devs can possibly reward content. If you think of it as a typical accounting system, there’s income and expenses for any given app.
Let’s break those up. The income for that app would be either from the users to the app, and/or from the network to the app. The expenses for that app would be from the app to the devs, and/or from the app to the content creators.
Let’s begin with the latter.
The app - that generates revenue - has to distribute it’s safecoins to the developers primarily. I mean, that’s what the app dev reward system was built for in the first place! The other aspect of that though, is that they developers have the opportunity to share that income with the content creators.
My question is, do they have to share that income with the content creators? And if they do not, as I asked myself in my previous post, what might motivate them to do so? Does there not exist the potential to benefit from the sharing of that income?
That’s perfectly fine, I’ve nothing against that. I posted all previous comments from iPad and it’s hassle to type and edit.
I re-read the poll on PtP. Ideally, yes, content creators should benefit.
But in real life, firstly we don’t know who is the creator, secondly, we don’t know what they’re uploading (could be complete garbage), and thirdly all methods proposed so far (including the current approach) are open to abuse.
So my point is the problem isn’t as much in how everyone should be rewarded, but how the app and coin economics can be fixed to prevent abuse. That is the fundamental question and the level of difficulty is great.
It’s not enough to merely prevent “most blatant” abuse. As long as any abuse is possible, that’s the kind of abuse that will happen on a constant basis. If PtP or any other way could solve that, then it’d be easy to have different approaches including those that you proposed. But at the moment whichever is used, the network is guaranteed to be abused. That is the real problem as I see it.
every method anyone’s ever gonna propose is gonna be open to abuse.
We’ll never find a 100% perfect answer, that’s impossible.
But what we are doing is finding different solutions, and choosing the best working solution among them, to create the most balanced network possible.
Because anything we do in this area is gonna be better than the current system (govt rules all, google owns all, big companies just sell us ads and sell us as commodities etc).
So even if it’s not 100% perfect, at least it will definitely be a step forward.
in my mind, it’s like, “as long as it’s workable enough” then it’s a major accomplishment and will open up amazing possibilities.
That’s like saying the coin cannot survive. Just my 2 maids.
huh? the only way the currency can survive is to be 100% perfect in every way?
then how did unbacked fiat come so far?
Has pay-to-get been discussed? I also like the idea of relay nodes being paid a minuscule amount to forward packets - this would potentially make it profitable if you were able to for eg put a node through to the outside when Egypt was cut off from the rest of the world.