Quote from: jvper on August 10, 2017, 09:50:40 PM

Quote from: stevebrule_phd on August 10, 2017, 07:45:48 PM

Quote from: jvper on August 10, 2017, 07:09:55 PM

Quote from: stevebrule_phd on August 10, 2017, 06:36:22 PM

Quote from: jvper on August 10, 2017, 04:09:10 PM

Quote from: Brenya321 on August 10, 2017, 03:36:53 PM

Quote from: Arvydas77 on August 10, 2017, 01:43:47 PM

We should wait for a new video introducing main features of WildSpark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP42ijvMSb0 I made a video about the new features Cheesy

OMG... Dor and his team wrote wonderful articles upon the attention economy and media flows on the Internet. AMPs would tokenize the cost of attention. But what we see is some old multilevel strategy to deceive people who think they can make money by AMPlifying and sharing links, hoping that other people will follow those steps. As soon as they realize it doesn't work and they lose money in average, they will only try to make content and AMPlify their own content for more AMPs, but probably there will not be many people AMPlifying that content, only themselves. I may be wrong, but I really don't see a point here...

??

Dude. AMPs can be used by curators with the purpose of earning money, but they are also a way to reward content creators directly. That means no longer will content creators have to rely on bullshit ad revenues, contracts with spotify, etc just to make a fucking living.

All you need is a popular channel on youtube, medium, or whatever and you can earn money from what used to be "thumbs up" on a video. No bullshit from corporate entities. Steemit has already shown that this tipping model is a viable way to incentivize content creators.

I would certainly tip youtube creators for creating content I like, even if I didn't expect a ROI on my 50 cent tip. Would you not?

I would prefer to invest in my children's education rather than regularly send money to youtubers, but it actually doesn't matter what I would or wouldn't do. This is the wrong question. What really matters is what most people would do. And they wouldn't tip.

Talking about Steemit... Do you see STEEM Dollars or even liquid STEEM flowing to good content authors? No! No tips! You only see upvotes. In Steemit, an upvote doesn't mean you are emptying your pockets on that decision. It is damn easy to upvote for free. I am not selling AMP now because I already sold at around 20k sats, but I think it is a good opportunity to sell once again, before the hype vanishes and the true reality arises.

Your assumption is wrong. Most people are paying spotify 9$/month for content. Everyone knows spotify fucks artists over... so I am betting that people would happily give that same 9$/month (or less!) directly to their favorite creators/curators if the switch is painless (and it will be with just a few more tweaks). And you can certainly still upvote... but now we have an a way to pay content creators easily, and directly. No middle man, no shitty waste of time ads. It's pretty great. I can't understand why you feel the need to FUD this, lmao. You have yet to put forward a valid criticism.

Also, you should probably invest more than 50 cents into your kids educations, man. That really isn't much.

I am not FUDing (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). I am analyzing it. Every project is intrinsically uncertain. There will always be doubt, and that's where money comes from: a good analysis out of the doubt and uncertainty. Everyone has reasons to believe in something. I believe the design is not sustainable, because people will soon find out they make money (let's say...) around 20% of the time and lose about 80% of the time. So why would you care to spend time curating content if you are losing in the long term? I don't get the driver of value here. I could jump back in and buy twice the number of AMPs I previously had, since the price is currently half, but I don't see any comment showing the potential value here.

"I'm convinced because I'm convinced"

Okay congratulations. Go be convinced somewhere else and quit spreading FUD