Add draft documentation on economics

[Joshfairhead]

Tokens get distributed to artists proportionally, based on the number of songs in the chosen playlist.

• Tokens distributed proportionally through playlists seems fine but the metric of songs in a playlist feels a bit strange.

This keeps the tokens held until matched curators listen to the song, review it and decide if they want to add it to any of their verified playlists. Once a curator does the job, the tokens are transferred to them.

• If artists are only paying curators when tracks are accepted, then it seems like there's a misalignment of incentives. If this is not the case and the push is what's paid for then its fine but the text feels unclear.

This keeps tokens held until matched explorers label the playlist. Once an explorer does the job, the tokens are transferred to them, this time unlocked.

• It seems the explorers don't get unlocked tokens for unsponsored content, and do get unlocked tokens for sponsored content, then it seems there's an opaque element in relation to adding metadata. This feels right to me as the incentive to add metadata is always persistent - some of the proceeds go into a personal wallet, and some of the proceeds goes into an artists wallet.

For me - in general - there's still a sense that the artists are coming up short as it takes considerably more effort to create the content than it does to add metadata or curate (the latter is debatable I guess). I'd wish for remuneration based on consumption. I'm not sure this matches exactly with playlists.

[OmeGak]

Replying to @Joshfairhead:

Tokens distributed proportionally through playlists seems fine but the metric of songs in a playlist feels a bit strange.

What does it make it feel strange for you? Now that you bring this up, I think that this policy would preserve winners-take-all dynamics. More prolific artists would end up having a larger share of donated tokens, which would allow them to promote more music. What do you think of the following policy instead?

Tokens get distributed equally to all artists featured in the chosen playlist.

[OmeGak]

Replying to @Joshfairhead:

If artists are only paying curators when tracks are accepted, then it seems like there's a misalignment of incentives. If this is not the case and the push is what's paid for then its fine but the text feels unclear.

The curators get paid for listening and reviewing songs, independently to songs getting added or not a playlist. Otherwise, as you point out, this would misalign incentives. I think my writing was not clear and I will rephrase the sentence to the following.

This keeps the tokens held until matched curators listen to the song, review it and decide if they want to add it to any of their verified playlists or not. Once a curator does the job, the tokens are transferred to them.

[OmeGak]

Replying to @Joshfairhead:

For me - in general - there's still a sense that the artists are coming up short as it takes considerably more effort to create the content than it does to add metadata or curate (the latter is debatable I guess).

I share your sentiment that the real value comes from artists producing music. At the same time, I'm not sure I fully understand in which way you think artists fall short. In the current vision, artists would be receiving tokens from explorers tagging playlists, without any additional effort. Artists, using these tokens, can promote their music or cash out. In practice, muses would become another revenue stream for artists that don't want to promote their music in the platform. Is this not clear from the explanation in the document?

I'd wish for remuneration based on consumption. I'm not sure this matches exactly with playlists.

What consumption are you referring to? Is it that of people listening to songs? If that is the case, it falls outside of the scope of muses. The platform won't be serving the actual songs but, rather, directing listeners to Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, Soundcloud, etc.

[OmeGak]

I just pushed an updated text. The main changes:

• I renamed explorers to taggers for clarity.
• I expanded details on token burning.

[OmeGak]

Replying to @jbtwist:

My main concern with this economy is the explorers getting rewarded tokens to donate their artists just for listening because:

What you point at here is the vulnerability to sybil attacks of the proposed circular economy. While I share your concerns, Gitcoin Quadratic Funding grants gives us examples of how these vulnerabilities can be exploited and mitigated. This are important caveats that I believe we should cover at length in this document.

• People spamming accounts just for donating themselves.

This would need to be artists creating new accounts, actually tagging playlists and donating via verified playlists. It's not yet described but, for playlists to be verified, they should have above a minimum number of followers and, perhaps too, feature multiple artists.

• Popular people with armys of followers using the platform fraudentally.

I'm not sure I understand you here. What people are you referring to? Artists, curators or taggers? In which platform do they have followers and how can these followers make the use of muses fraudulent?

• Fair users won't feel that their tokens are helping at all to the artists they love, because the amounts rewarded are low.

You are totally right that, if token minting happens without any form of control, it may be possible to flood the market and make the price collapse. It is arguable that, if the price collapses, neither artists or curators will be encouraged to use the platform.

You make me think that token minting could implement different forms of throttling. Some that come to mind:

• Max daily issuance in the entire platform.
• Max daily issuance per tagger.
• Max daily distribution per playlist.

You also make me think that there are other points at which token can be burned:

• Tokens unclaimed by artists after a certain amount of time.

[OmeGak]

Replying to @jbtwist:

I would go for: Explorers can support their artists:

• Paying curators to review the songs they like (if a curator has already reviewed a song, this triggers an error)
• Donating money directly to the artists
• Buying items sold by the artists (NFTs, Concert tickets, Merchandising, etc.)
• Talk to them directly

The benefits for the explorers to use the platform is to discover communities of artists they like, they can support them and they can even buy their stuff, feeling a much higher feeling of support than just give them a few cents.

It is probable for the most active explorers to become curators eventually.

I can imagine other ways through which people could support artists on MUSES.FM, but I don't see how this proposal would trigger and maintain a circular economy. Some questions and reflections that your proposal trigger in me are:

• Why would taggers pay actual money to send songs to curators to consider?
• Why would taggers donate actual money to artists via MUSES.FM?
• Why would taggers talk to artists via MUSES.FM when they can already do it on Twitter or Instagram?
• Turning MUSES.FM into a shopfront for artists diverts us from what makes our value proposition unique.
• While I think it's possible that many artists are also curators and that many curators would also be taggers, I don't think the same applies in the other direction. Curation takes much more time than tagging. Music production takes much more time than curation.

[jbtwist]

I'm not sure I understand you here. What people are you referring to? Artists, curators or taggers? In which platform do they have followers and how can these followers make the use of muses fraudulent?

I mean, basically, influencers, a "music" influencer can register in the platform and attract a massive number of explorers, who will give all their rewards to him and support only him, just because "it's free" for them.

[OmeGak]

I just added a mermaid diagram describing the circular economy.

[jbtwist]

Why would taggers pay actual money to send songs to curators to consider?

You like an artist, you like a playlist, but your favourite songs of that artist is not on that playlist, I think it would be nice to have that song, and you feel you are supporting the artist you like

Why would taggers donate actual money to artists via MUSES.FM?

It's a patron-like system, you like an artist, and you want him to continue working on creating music, so you can help him economically.

Why would taggers talk to artists via MUSES.FM when they can already do it on Twitter or Instagram?

Because paying them they get the compromise of answer you. There are websites that consists in this, but after reflexing about it, I think it is not a good idea.

Turning MUSES.FM into a shopfront for artists diverts us from what makes our value proposition unique. While I think it's possible that many artists are also curators and that many curators would also be taggers, I don't think the same applies in the other direction. Curation takes much more time than tagging. Music production takes much more time than curation.

I thought about the shops as just a way to support the artist you like, to enter in the shop you should to go to the profile of your artist, so it would not divert the platform, it should be a bit hidden.

[OmeGak]

I added a section briefly discussing caveats with the proposed economic model. I feel comfortable with the draft at the moment and I think the PR is ready for merge.

[OmeGak]

Replying to @jbtwist:

Why would taggers pay actual money to send songs to curators to consider?

You like an artist, you like a playlist, but your favourite songs of that artist is not on that playlist, I think it would be nice to have that song, and you feel you are supporting the artist you like

I can imagine taggers submitting songs to curators, but not as the first thing that taggers would be inclined to think of in order to promote artists. If they just want to have a song in a playlist for personal enjoyment, there is nothing preventing them to clone and customize the playlist.

Why would taggers donate actual money to artists via MUSES.FM?

It's a patron-like system, you like an artist, and you want him to continue working on creating music, so you can help him economically.

I guess that you could imagine a Patreon-like platform where artists don't need to sign up to receive patronage from people. Spotify enabled such feature during pandemic. It would definitely be interesting to explore this feature in the future. I imagine taggers could display which artists they are actively supporting on their public profile page.