7 ms·

Would you have paid to write this comment? Would someone who has a monetary incentive to comment pay to do so?

WinstonSmith84 5y ago
Depends on the price. $10-$50 for a standard eth tx surely not. But say the equivalent of ~$0.01, probably yes. This might be enough to disincentive _some_ (a lot of?) spamming (unfortunately it's all theory as no network works like this yet)
- kreeben 5y ago
  Can poor people also participate in the web 3.0? Or is it only for people with extra cash?
  - krageon 5y ago
    Gating using money inevitably means poor people cannot participate. It is quite simply a hard problem to solve (that I feel should not be solved this way). I've always been fond of how Korea does MMO accounts (supposedly): Government ID based, so if you get banned you are gone forever.
    - usrbinbash 5y ago
      > It is quite simply a hard problem to solve We already have a solution to this problem: It's the internet as it is right now.
- malermeister 5y ago
  Now imagine living in Bangladesh, where the average yearly wage is around 1000 USD. Is the opinion of some tech bro in the Bay Area making six figures really worth a hundred times as much? Do they have a hundred times as much to say or are they a hundred times as insightful? Or maybe, just maybe, tying all participation to a monetary transaction is an incredibly classist thing to do that will shut out vast portions of the world so the rich and privileged can feel "free".
RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
I don't have to pay to write comments, but I would likely have to lock up capital tied to an account while the comment is being rated, which can be lost permanently. Having an account with more verified comments can have a mark or rating of quality that can be queried off a blockchain outside of the centralized website that serves the data, which can be investigated independently by a user suspicious of centralized vote manipulation. What users do when seeing comments from accounts that have lower signals of quality is up to the user to decide. If they would rather listen to voices from unverified accounts over ones that have higher signals that's for them to ultimately choose. No one will be required to necessarily lock up capital to comment, and no one will be required to only look at comments from those who locked up capital. This is just an example I thought up of on the spot, but I believe there are people who actually did a much deeper dive into these concepts.

Depends on the price. $10-$50 for a standard eth tx surely not. But say the equivalent of ~$0.01, probably yes. This might be enough to disincentive _some_ (a lot of?) spamming (unfortunately it's all theory as no network works like this yet)

kreeben 5y ago
Can poor people also participate in the web 3.0? Or is it only for people with extra cash?
- krageon 5y ago
  Gating using money inevitably means poor people cannot participate. It is quite simply a hard problem to solve (that I feel should not be solved this way). I've always been fond of how Korea does MMO accounts (supposedly): Government ID based, so if you get banned you are gone forever.
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    > It is quite simply a hard problem to solve We already have a solution to this problem: It's the internet as it is right now.
malermeister 5y ago
Now imagine living in Bangladesh, where the average yearly wage is around 1000 USD. Is the opinion of some tech bro in the Bay Area making six figures really worth a hundred times as much? Do they have a hundred times as much to say or are they a hundred times as insightful? Or maybe, just maybe, tying all participation to a monetary transaction is an incredibly classist thing to do that will shut out vast portions of the world so the rich and privileged can feel "free".

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago

I don't have to pay to write comments, but I would likely have to lock up capital tied to an account while the comment is being rated, which can be lost permanently. Having an account with more verified comments can have a mark or rating of quality that can be queried off a blockchain outside of the centralized website that serves the data, which can be investigated independently by a user suspicious of centralized vote manipulation. What users do when seeing comments from accounts that have lower signals of quality is up to the user to decide. If they would rather listen to voices from unverified accounts over ones that have higher signals that's for them to ultimately choose. No one will be required to necessarily lock up capital to comment, and no one will be required to only look at comments from those who locked up capital. This is just an example I thought up of on the spot, but I believe there are people who actually did a much deeper dive into these concepts.