Quote from: Phoenixtrader on Today at 08:34:15 PM

Hey guys, let's talk about Web3 and SocialFi. In this day and age, it's clear that quality content is the real deal, and many of you are aware of how much some content creators make from apps like TikTok and YouTube.

The downside is that these platforms own the content, and they earn much more than they pay the creators.

This is why I believe Web3 is crucial, especially with projects like Phaver, which not only give users control over their social profiles and content—ensuring they aren't locked into a single network—but also reward them for their contributions.

https://x.com/phaverapp?t=SEK6TrNyibS_gr4vBpKGZw&s=09

The question, though, is about sustainability in the long run. Do you think this model can last?

The problem with that kind of project is how huge and the insane amount of advantage centralized platforms like Google and Meta have when compared to decentralized social networks in which content creators are the sole owners of what they create. There is a reason why people choose to this day to browse on YouTube instead seeking for alternatives, it is due to the monopoly YouTube almost have established in the content distribution and the distribution of wealth to creators, which is minimal, that is obvious.
How is a web3 platforms which is supposed to compete against YouTube to survive if it does not have a fraction of the traffick both YT and Meta have? How to catch the attention of people from the beginning? Decentralization of content and ownership of cryptographic keys is not enough to attract people onto the platform, actually, most of the average YouTube users do not even know how to properly protect and manage cryptographic keys by their own, and in Web3 that translates to the loss of access to the channel, the context itself and also loss of identity on the eye of the platform.

There is still a long path ahead before some Web3 could even start to compete against YouTube, whether we like it or not...