search

Joystream / atlas

Whitelabel consumer and publisher experience for Joystream
https://www.joystream.org
GNU General Public License v3.0
100 stars 44 forks source link

Develop viewer incentives model #6325

Open dmtrjsg opened 6 months ago

dmtrjsg commented 6 months ago

Context

H: subsidising viewer engagement would result in driving the metrics up and make product more attractive for creators and viewers.

Scope

Develop events tracking system that tracks member viewer side engagement and updates stats in Orion based on off-and on chain events. Engagement events would result in accumulating some off-chain scoring (smiles :) ?) stored on a membership level in Orion. Smiles will be displayed on membership page. Accrual of smiles will be somehow reflected visually for user (e.g. did smth and see smiles going up in the profile). Smiles ranking / leaderboards will be visible, including % increase each term. Top smiles increase will be rewarded with JOY tokens.

Events:

  1. Video length watched
  2. Comments added
  3. Replies to comments added
  4. Reactions added to videos
  5. Reactions added to comments
  6. NFTs purchased
  7. NFT bid
  8. CRT purchased
  9. Tips given
  10. Tips received
  11. Profile population with details (social media links)

:question:

  1. Do we have a mechanism to pay members en masse, as opposed to channels?
spatsochi commented 6 months ago

The idea is interesting, it would also be possible to create a leaderboard where information would be displayed for everyone, a list of the most active viewers, and also a list of the most viewed channels

mochet commented 6 months ago

Specific to viewers (i.e. reward video length watched). There have been many projects that have tried incentivizing viewers and I've never seen an example of it that ended up doing well unfortunately--it is actually something that numerous people have suggested over the years for Joystream. I think they are very heavily prone to sybil/bot attacks. I've even come across many older examples that were pre-web3 and the type of users they attracted were just running bots/multiple screens.

So, a program that does everything you mentioned except for reward video length watched I think would be really worth looking at.

EDIT: I suppose video length watched could be a multiplier or bonus--but should really not be possible to get rewards just by viewing videos due to extreme likelihood of abuse/sybil attacks

mochet commented 6 months ago

Do we have a mechanism to pay members en masse, as opposed to channels?

  1. The funding proposal can be used to send funds to up to 100 accounts I believe. I'm not sure of the exact number.
  2. The channel payout proposal can still be used, the users just have to have a channel--and this may work better anyway, because then they can see the transactions within Gleev itself.

I think until the payments reach a scale of like >10k recipients then its probably easiest to just do discretionary or YPP-like payments

spatsochi commented 6 months ago

I would also suggest an idea that would attract many creators and improve the use of joy, in terms of earning the platform itself and burning tokens, it is possible to sell videos, if the function to close access to a certain video was added, thus the value of buying joy increased to watch important content, and think with the mechanics, how much will the platform and the creator earn on this, and it is mandatory to burn a certain percentage from the transaction, for example, 90% of the creator's earnings, 5% of the platform's earnings, 5% burning of the token, and the second important thing, to make it possible to create closed channels with a paid subscription so that viewers pay the creator a commission per month, if we implement such functions, it seems to me that we will be able to attract the most influential creators to the platform, because this will give the opportunity to monetize content. Next, you can come up with a collectible NFT from the Joystream and sell it , which will make it possible to open closed channels or certain content , in general, you need to think of a mechanic that would interest everyone

mochet commented 6 months ago

I have some recommendations:

bedeho commented 6 months ago

H: subsidising viewer engagement would result in driving the metrics up and make product more attractive for creators and viewers.

I'm assuming the idea here is to pay consumers for doing acts 1-11, if not then please clarify.

The outcome here would be super predictable, this would be abused massively, create tons of noise from a mix of bots, farmers and real people trying to just do it manually and understanding 0. It will cost us JOY, which will get dumped, customer support time, overhead in managing and tuning this program. Leaving all this aside, what is the upside? I dont see one at all.

YPP was constructed to bootstrap supply of videos and streams of future video uploads, so subsidies make sense there, and also its the much smaller side and also the side where detecting abuse is much much cheaper. With supply, demand can come. In this initaitive we are not bootstrapping actual consumers, because whatever is deterring them from using Gleev now is not solved by using this, and this the moment we turn off rewards there is no actual benefit retained.

This experiment has been tried so many times, in STEPN and virtually every other x-to-earn thing.

mochet commented 6 months ago

H: subsidising viewer engagement would result in driving the metrics up and make product more attractive for creators and viewers.

I'm assuming the idea here is to pay consumers for doing acts 1-11, if not then please clarify.

The outcome here would be super predictable, this would be abused massively, create tons of noise from a mix of bots, farmers and real people trying to just do it manually and understanding 0. It will cost us JOY, which will get dumped, customer support time, overhead in managing and tuning this program. Leaving all this aside, what is the upside? I dont see one at all.

YPP was constructed to bootstrap supply of videos and streams of future video uploads, so subsidies make sense there, and also its the much smaller side and also the side where detecting abuse is much much cheaper. With supply, demand can come. In this initaitive we are not bootstrapping actual consumers, because whatever is deterring them from using Gleev now is not solved by using this, and this the moment we turn off rewards there is no actual benefit retained.

This experiment has been tried so many times, in STEPN and virtually every other x-to-earn thing.

I think ideally we look at this as something to run 3-5 times and then discontinue and have a high focus on the CRT feature above all else--to demonstrate to people first hand that it is an interesting and novel feature that can potentially generate returns for them and to drive some activity into the marketplace. While I agree with your concerns about noise, I think noise is a lot better than silence in this case.

I think though that public sales (the non-AMM thing) need to be functional because the current AMM system pushes the prices up significantly meaning revenue shares aren't attractive unless you're an early bird.

It will cost us JOY, which will get dumped

This is not technically true. With a leaderboard tied to actions that require a user to hold $JOY in the first place (i.e. NFTs and CRTs) then the rewards given for the top n participants on the leaderboard can be scaled to a point where it makes economic sense. If we don't reward things that don't require $JOY then that would be different.

@dmtrjsg IMHO I would recommend removing the following (or only making them have any value for people that do other parts) as they can all be done with locked deposit $JOY (i.e. the free amount given upon signup) and can be done at significant scale for basically pennies. I think they are the least economically valuable for us and it makes the most sense to focus on NFTs & CRTs & tips for a program like this--it would also mean the program is simpler to manage.

bedeho commented 6 months ago

@mochet I think I dont track what you t

This is not technically true. With a leaderboard tied to actions that require a user to hold $JOY in the first place (i.e. NFTs and CRTs) then the rewards given for the top n participants on the leaderboard can be scaled to a point where it makes economic sense.

I disagree, people will hold whatever, then sell when tehy get their rewards, nothing fundamentally different. Also, you dont need to hold JOY do own an NFT or CRT, but at this point I can only speculate because we are not all talking about one clear idea here. I would prefer you write a distinct issue about something that is very specific to CRTs with a clear description about what you think the goal is, I also think that shold have been part of this issue too be honest, would have kept us on more focused in the discussion.

MarikJudo commented 6 months ago

The idea of incentivizing consumers is interesting, particularly as another way to engage with the target audience of video platform users. I think we should work on it in one form or another. At the same time, I fully agree that actual rewards for engagement could lead to massive abuse by sybils.

In light of these two points, I propose implementing this idea in the form of a large, ongoing bounty program with the following details:

mochet commented 6 months ago

@mochet I think I dont track what you t

This is not technically true. With a leaderboard tied to actions that require a user to hold $JOY in the first place (i.e. NFTs and CRTs) then the rewards given for the top n participants on the leaderboard can be scaled to a point where it makes economic sense.

I disagree, people will hold whatever, then sell when tehy get their rewards, nothing fundamentally different. Also, you dont need to hold JOY do own an NFT or CRT, but at this point I can only speculate because we are not all talking about one clear idea here. I would prefer you write a distinct issue about something that is very specific to CRTs with a clear description about what you think the goal is, I also think that shold have been part of this issue too be honest, would have kept us on more focused in the discussion.

I disagree, people will hold whatever, then sell when tehy get their rewards, nothing fundamentally different.

This very much depends on how the program is structured. If it has repeat rewards then it can incentivize people to hold. The biggest differentiator between this and other initiatives is that this can add buy pressure to the market.

Also, you dont need to hold JOY do own an NFT or CRT

You do need to have $JOY in the first place to use either of these features though. They aren't usable to users who join via the faucet.

dmtrjsg commented 6 months ago

Thank you all for the comments. We discussed it again on the Gleev meeting and it seems that with some refinement it could potentially be useful to up the engagement.

  1. Make this a temporary feature, supporting the Drop as opposed to core value proposition.
  2. Award the points (smiles) only for chain activities that generate buy pressure
    • CRT purchase
    • NFT purchase
    • Tipping
  3. Have leaderboards displayed in app for most active profiles that accumulate such points
  4. Allocated fixed fund for the drop rewarding the top X members each round.

__ my view in general that even if we distribute small amount the points for comments and reactions (not views), as a temporary measure to bootstrap the demand side, this may result in positive impact on creators engagement. E.g. when they see more engagement on the platform they will be more engaged with us in general inclusive of YPP rewarded activities.

mochet commented 5 months ago

my view in general that even if we distribute small amount the points for comments and reactions (not views), as a temporary measure to bootstrap the demand side, this may result in positive impact on creators engagement. E.g. when they see more engagement on the platform they will be more engaged with us in general inclusive of YPP rewarded activities.

One of the ways the Valve/Steam gaming marketplace tackled this kind of problem was by making accounts that have engaged in some sort of "actual" purchase qualify for certain things. In this case we could set some threshold of like >500 $JOY spent on tips/CRTs/NFTs for people to qualify

I guess one difficulty is with cyclical rewards where a bad actor just tips themselves or something--perhaps a way to get around this is to only allow for YPP approved channels to receive rewards? I am not sure how solvable that problem is, but in any case I believe for most of these actions the platform takes a cut anyway.

mochet commented 5 months ago

Make this a temporary feature, supporting the Drop as opposed to core value proposition.

I would also say that is debatable. Temporary is a bit too vague, but it may do good to keep this going on a long/permanent timescale (with iteratively more restrictive requirements or high qualifications) as a good way to reward the community--it is of course difficult to do something like this and reward "good" behavior and not just economic behavior but I think is still a cool feature/activity to have long term. I can also imagine it may increase viewer retention and engagement on the platform as a whole.

bedeho commented 5 months ago

I can also imagine it may increase viewer retention and engagement on the platform as a whole.

I think we should solve our core product hurdls rather than sugar coat with these kinds of schemes.

yasiryagi commented 5 months ago

I do not think direct viewer incentives is something we should consider, none of the projects who tried direct compensation had any success (e.g. paly to earn). But I think the ideas of smiles and events is interesting. Collecting that data per channel plus total and linking it to creators tokens economy. Allowing creators to rewards their viewers based on their loyalty and activities adds another layer to the economy of the project; creators have the choice to rewards their viewers with creator's token which can also offer the viewer a share of revenue.

mochet commented 5 months ago

I can also imagine it may increase viewer retention and engagement on the platform as a whole.

I think we should solve our core product hurdls rather than sugar coat with these kinds of schemes.

This is of course important in the longer term, but I think we really need something to bring in people to the CRT feature and to Gleev to drive activity at the moment.