17mNxa…zGjY

If Johnny can perform a costly signal such cut off fingers, this does not prove he is a good artist. If he pays someone else to cut off their fingers, this is an even worse costly signal. Even if we all agree to this signaling system..still bad.

@24 The only hope Boost has is if people value quantity of boosts over their dollar amount. For example, two $.01 Boosts more meaningful than one $1000000.00 Boost. If they are smart, they will implement a marketing fee structure on top of Boost.

No offense, but your Boost upvote system is status quo pay to play.

Something innovative would be a multi-level marketing fee structure with the content creator at the top instead of a parasitic multi-national marketing firm.

Of course it will be abused. Marketing firms will have a process for vetting songs. Of those, they'll know what % statistically will succeed. And they'll know to the dollar how much to Boost. Individuals, as a rule, won't have enough to $$ to compete.

If you want to consider the viability of your system, you must consider how it can abused. Marketing firms will just buy big boosts and have an unfair advantage over little guys. Sure the little guy will win occasionally but not as a rule.

Content is inherently POW-backed. If it's actually good, do you think they used a random generator to produce it?

Boost is fundamentally a voting mechanism. But it is a voting mechanism that doesn't reward the content creator, so is it a good one?

Suppose a song gets $1000000.00 worth of Boosts and the content creator gets $5k somehow. Has the content creator been properly incentivized? Or is it really obvious that the wrong party is getting paid?

It will be an interesting experiment. I think it will be easy not to use it. If I want to signal in a superior manner all I have to discern which party to pay directly. Please..show me one case where this won't be true. I want to be wrong.

I'm a fan of @24 . But I don't see anything that Boost does better than standard payments with Bitcoin. It's the economics that fails. It clearly diverts funds away from what should be going to content creators and promoters/marketers to miners.

To recap today: I'm advocating for Twetch 1. implementing sponsorship 2. implementing marketing commission structure for "like" or "market" option 3. Making above a priority because it will make a market for curators/aggregators. Isn't one now.

I thought a feature of Metanet is that good content would get greater exposure due to the masses sorting/marketing good content. So far that is BS. Things are just getting lost in the block chain. Normal people just don't have the time to search for it.

I wouldn't mind sponsoring a really awesome curator for $5.00 per month...or 5 for $1.00. This could just be implemented as a reminder to pay. somewhere on my home page. TAANSTAFL. We must support great content or it stops. People have limited resources.

This is also a nice way to implement a marketing fund.

Twetch should allow people sponsor twetches. That way some likes could be free. If there was a marketing commission structure, it might get that ball rolling if the twetch actually merited likes. But that's IF! Worthless to put lipstick on a pig.

Basically what I'm saying is that people who expose you to great info should be paid. Each Like should contain the info of who exposed liker to info. That way marketing fees can be paid. It's generally 3 levels that get paid for sales commissions.

Yes all sales/marketing hierarchy tend to be top heavy for commissions. Who takes the most risk? Think about that.

4c to previous liker's previous liker.

Twetch Likes should cost 11 cents. For every Like, 1c to Twetch, 4c to content creator, 2c previous liker, 4c liker before that. No previous likers?.. first liker takes leftover marketing fees. No implementation of Boost is necessary for good signalling.

You're implying that you can train people to value boosts. I suppose that is possible if the consensus is to use Boosts as the signaling mechanism. But I think they would prefer a fee structure such that they get paid marketing fees, not miners.

Only empirical evidence will resolve this issue. I don't doubt it's honest..I doubt its relevance. For example, if you boost my Baemails..I will not be influenced positively. If you boost it a lot, I may be irritated you didn't just send me money.

The issue is this: Sure the signal is costly and honest. But the critical question is whether or not you're signaling what you think you're signaling.

I want to be proven wrong but I haven't found that Boosting is actually relevant signaling. It's like taking your cash and lighting it on fire. If you're paying for an activity and not getting anything in return, you're subsidizing that activity.

Did you know you can restore your Simply Cash wallet in Electrum SV? Can you do that with Handcash or Centbee? No! I recommend you don't put too much money in those wallets. This is a public service announcement.

Boost is subsidizing mining, which is unambiguously Proof of Stake. It is costly signaling that is easy to mimic. But boost is also interesting like math we don't use, but will. Just keeping it real. I get nervous when I see false narratives.

Do we actually have a Metanet yet? Or do we just have a lot of things that simply use Bitcoin as data storage? No big deal if Metanet is not exactly rolled out yet, but let's keep it real. I get nervous when I see false narratives.

Mining is Proof of Work. Subsidizing mining is Proof of Stake.

It only makes sense when signaling many to many. Anything else will make the recipient wonder, perhaps bitterly, why he's not getting paid for the value of his content, time, or other product.

I agree. Basically, "Share, but do something for yourself also." That way the value of the group is increased AND you do something on your own too. Still thinking of what I want to do. But the field of play is big enough to go in a different direction.

Only recently I became aware of Boost. It sort of adds a layer on Bitcoin. I just happened to notice that you could add a marketing layer on that, which is particularly valuable since revenue is an issue.

Still brainstorming. But I have the marketing.

Just have a boost ID of the parent boost embedded in every boost. The application can do fee calculation on the client side of the app.