J-Sek
commented
1 year ago There is also less theoretical model pioneered by Presearch. Advertisers pay tokens to display ads, users gain tokens by searching for stuff and can either post their own ads, or stake it on a search node to earn currency for them essentially participating and becoming a building block of a network. This means people can pull off anytime they don't feel like the project is moving the right direction - ensuring stability and pro-user behavior.
What would WEI do instead? Submit users to dystopian-ish device integrity check. There's no way around this fact no matter how much anyone lubricate the idea with 5-10% of "unknown" responses.
Excuse me for posting here, but there is no way to critique this "hot new proposal" and I just really need to try to explain some basics for the "explainer.md" author.
The problem:
suckers.. I mean clients – in order to survive, compete or just rip profits (depending on their current position)It is not really that complicated to solve:
Who wins:
Dependencies
Everything depends on reviewers and we can expect that this model can be abused by influencers trying to charge as much as possible while optimizing and delivering "just enough" quality content. Like with every market, the key is in giving clients a choice so "bad reviewers" are not ripping them off. It's a
newproblem exacerbated by this model but may have an easy solution as well - an upper limit for research content that is set by the client on a pool and shared with the website owner/server."It won't scale"
It does not have to be on a scale that we see with current model of advertisement. As mentioned, the model where we shovel as many ads as possible through every poor sucker that does not have ad-blocker is a broken model. The uderlying principle of alternative model is eliminating core of the previous model:
"It is already in place, nothing new, YT is full of this"
Kinda.. Content exists, but creators are just an extension of dying "marketing department", making it possible for businesses to abuse creators in a number of ways. It is not a healthy relationship between clients and creators/influencers either as content is forced into an engagement form to fit next to the half-naked people dancing or falling on their faces. We don't need to force ads on people with fried brain cells anymore. The way it is working now does not solve the problem - it just plays along the status quo and is honestly pathetic.
"This will hurt {people who depend on broken model}"
Yes. It has to. Model that hurts us need to die and the new one has to replace it in order for any progress to happen. What did you expect?
"Nobody will pay for «research»"
Some people want everything to be cheap or free and some are willing to pay small amount in order to save time and
avoidreduce risk of buying stuff that won't match their expectations. We might have 99:1 ratio now. We definitely can have 1:99 ratio in the future. Just keep your mind open and don't expect miracle to happen over night and without any effort. Seriously... time to grow up."How is it revolutionary, I can't grasp it"
The trick is in guiding clients to make upfront decision that they will spend some small amount of money on research. They will be in the right mindset – more engaged and potentially even ready to spend money as soon as they are happy with their findings. This means no more "limited time offer", or "buy 2, get 3rd for free" nonsense. An added benefit might be that we can get rid of all the clutter rotting the internet as we knew 20-30 years ago.
Would we see the social media "as we know it" die? Well... it is a fruit from a poisonous plant – grown to be based on money from advertisement. We should expect mainstream social media to adapt by either dying or transforming. Good news is that you can easily back up your data and migrate to alternative self-hosted or decentralized platforms. It's just a matter of convenience, right?