2 ms·

> People think everything is valuable By definition, a royalty is the sharing of already realized value. We don’t need to imagine what value may be realized, s

by cush 3y ago

> People think everything is valuable By definition, a royalty is the sharing of already realized value. We don’t need to imagine what value may be realized, so the Roman Circus analogy isn’t necessary or accurate.

6510 3y ago
There is a difference between the [collective] perception of value and what is objectively valuable for our civilization. We might imagine an island with 100 inhabitants where 3 people own 99% of the wealth and 99% of the produce. Here valuable is for the most part defined by what those 3 people value. If they really enjoy good choreography, 50 people could permanently work to put great dance shows together. It makes senses to cut down on fishing and farming. If there is food for 40% the system works. China deleted 12,000 cryptocurrency influencers accounts from Weibo and Baidu. Both cryptocurrency and influences are valuable. As the formula creates it's own money everyone could be a cryptocurrency influencer for a living. I don't see why the sector couldn't grow to be bigger than the rest of the economy. To me the danger starts when wealth and income are increasingly controlled by people who don't make useful contributions to our collective survival. We can use information to educate people and to do countless productive things. I'm not willing to sacrifice 1% of that process to rent seeking organizations and individuals or to peoples sensitivities. We are not talking about 1%, we are attempting to design the entire flow of information to cater to these people primarily.
- cush 3y ago
  > There is a difference between the [collective] perception of value and what is objectively valuable for our civilization. No, not perceived value. I’m literally talking about sharing revenue. Dollars. Cold hard cash. Eg Customer pays to have DALL-E generate an image, then fractions of a penny are shared with contributors of the DALL-E model based on the contributors’ weights that were used. Again the rest of your analogies are unnecessary because we’re talking about two different things.

by cush 3y ago

6510 3y ago

There is a difference between the [collective] perception of value and what is objectively valuable for our civilization. We might imagine an island with 100 inhabitants where 3 people own 99% of the wealth and 99% of the produce. Here valuable is for the most part defined by what those 3 people value. If they really enjoy good choreography, 50 people could permanently work to put great dance shows together. It makes senses to cut down on fishing and farming. If there is food for 40% the system works. China deleted 12,000 cryptocurrency influencers accounts from Weibo and Baidu. Both cryptocurrency and influences are valuable. As the formula creates it's own money everyone could be a cryptocurrency influencer for a living. I don't see why the sector couldn't grow to be bigger than the rest of the economy. To me the danger starts when wealth and income are increasingly controlled by people who don't make useful contributions to our collective survival. We can use information to educate people and to do countless productive things. I'm not willing to sacrifice 1% of that process to rent seeking organizations and individuals or to peoples sensitivities. We are not talking about 1%, we are attempting to design the entire flow of information to cater to these people primarily.

cush 3y ago
> There is a difference between the [collective] perception of value and what is objectively valuable for our civilization. No, not perceived value. I’m literally talking about sharing revenue. Dollars. Cold hard cash. Eg Customer pays to have DALL-E generate an image, then fractions of a penny are shared with contributors of the DALL-E model based on the contributors’ weights that were used. Again the rest of your analogies are unnecessary because we’re talking about two different things.