Community and indirect incentives

In the previous article, “Solving the contradiction between customers being users and contributors, the POP algorithm based on heads” we mentioned that the POS algorithm only solves the average value of heads, but each user’s contribution is different. How do we measure it?

The POP algorithm is effective for users’ fixed contribution behaviors, such as registration, but how do we define uncertain user contributions? In the past, many projects thought carefully and proposed many points to describe users’ contributions. When there were too many points, users became confused.

Incentives for uncertain behavior

All incentive standards should be simple. Zhihu uses five dimensions to score article authors, which seems very good. Binance Square and Snowball, which are not rated, click better. The readings of the same article posted on Snowball and Zhihu differed by more than ten times. The article’s author is most concerned about the number of clicks, forwarding, likes, and reposting but does not seem to care about whether to score. Obviously Zhihu has a problem with intelligent push, and this behavior cannot be reversed through points. It may seem not easy to design a points system correctly. How to motivate? Let us look at the new factors emerging from the Internet.

The Internet has produced two new factors: group owners and big Vs

Were there group leaders and big Vs before the Internet? No. It is caused by the Internet expanding the scope of people’s communication. Group owners provide services, and big Vs provide knowledge. Almost all WeChat group owners offer free services. Big Vs are a little better and can sell goods.

The group owner provides services. Robot customer service is now popular, but the current service level cannot be compared with human service. The group owner supports the chainless customer service system, and his performance is judged by the number of group members. The number of group friends is related to his income.

Big V provides knowledge. What measures a big V is the number of fans. A big V may even make more money than a company. The problem with Big V is that the content life cycle is short. If you want to maintain long-term, high-quality content output, it cannot be one person but a team. The team’s expenses are high, and it is difficult to maintain a profit model without the wool coming out of the pig. While the Chinese big Vs on YouTube are playing content, some have big V broadcast-style advertisements promoting VPNs and immigration, etc.

Direct incentives are not fair enough

The incentive method of YouTube is fair, but 3% of the leaders take away 85% of the profit share. More than 50 million broadcasters are on the platform, and 1.5 million broadcasters make money. How many broadcasters can earn more than they earn from full-time work? The content has a long-tail effect, but you can’t get cash in the long-tail stage because there are not enough clicks. Small podcasters suffer because big podcasters and companies swallow up the value they create. We provide four levels for “little broadcasters” in the chainless system.

Direct incentives are “piece-rate wages.” Why do companies and agencies pay by the hour and generally adopt a grade-level wage system in the real world? Piece wages are equivalent to temporary workers, and grade wages are comparable to regular workers. From this point of view, all YouTube broadcasters are temporary workers on YouTube, and they cannot share the company’s development benefits. Podcasters are also direct users of YouTube. They bring indirect user traffic to YouTube, and thus, YouTube obtains advertising revenue. YouTube distributes 55% of advertising revenue to podcasters. It is the principle of distribution in the industrial age, where shareholders and management teams take away the dividends. This distribution principle was reasonably fair until the emergence of Bitcoin.

Satoshi Nakamoto correctly used the characteristics of the Internet

Before Satoshi Nakamoto, Internet projects had a control center. The transmission characteristics of the Internet were point-to-point, and there was no center. Because the Internet is just a tool for big technology companies, the development of the Internet eventually led to the emergence of giants like YouTube, Facebook, and WeChat. The same organizational structure and distribution mechanism as in the industrial era were produced. The system designed by Satoshi Nakamoto has no company structure and no company control methods. Eventually, the means of control evolved into communities. This structure is compatible with the characteristics of the Internet. Still, in Satoshi Nakamoto’s system, users have no say, and of course, the project does not receive dividends. Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin system is not a platform project. For him, the structure of the Bitcoin system is appropriate. However, it is an inappropriate community structure for platform projects. How do we build a community for platform projects?

The cryptocurrency community is characterized by coin as a link

A community must have joint support, such as a housing community, where the members must be related to the house. The house is the community’s link, and the cryptocurrency community’s link is the currency.

Community currency holders can be divided into four categories:

  1. Token holders do not need to contribute.
  2. Promoters whose contributions are measured by points are equivalent to small YouTube broadcasters.
  3. Group owner contribution is measured by the number of group members.
  4. Big V is measured by the number of fans.

There is also the core team and the checks and balances cornerstone of the organization.

Measure their contribution on a 12-grade scale. From the community promoters to the core team, they form community contributors and enjoy indirect incentives similar to salary levels. For how the community is motivated, please see Chapter 3 of the “Web3.0 Chainless Financial Platform White Paper

Regarding the size of user contributions, direct incentives and indirect incentives are used to expand the “company” mechanism to the community. The community is the highest decision-making mechanism of the project. It should be the Bitcoin system that leaves us the essence of. Community mechanisms are more in line with human evolution.

core team

The core team members start as members of the funders’ team. As the community expands, they are ultimately voted on and assessed by the community.

Conclusion

The land was important in the agricultural era, the industrial era was an enterprise model, and the characteristics of the Internet era determined that it was not the fourth industrial revolution but the Internet revolution. Can structuring a currency-based community and introducing indirect incentives solve the Kevin Kelly problem? The chainless community is trying to return to the original form of the Internet revolution.

Share this article or Email subscribe:
RSS
Follow by Email
X (Twitter)
Visit Us
Follow Me
YouTube
YouTube

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top