3 ms·
I think it would only be a Ponzi if social media shout-outs were zero-sum. But they're not. I can tell my audience to check out your stuff, you tell your audi
by 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
I think it would only be a Ponzi if social media shout-outs were zero-sum. But they're not. I can tell my audience to check out your stuff, you tell your audience to check out my stuff, and there's the potential for mutual benefit. Maybe some disengaged people in my audience engage much more with your content. Or maybe our followers just spend more time on Tiktok overall, or more time on our Tiktoks as opposed to other peoples' Tiktoks.
Another point is the rich get richer on social media. Having followers is how you gain followers. Social proof is important. People like to talk about what everyone else is talking about. Once a new client reaches critical mass, they're going to passively gain followers due to this effect (e.g. creators with more followers are more likely to be recommended by the platform -- at least I would assume this is generally the case). So adding in a new client and gaining followers for them is an investment in the long term.
I think YC companies buying services from each other could be a good analogy actually.
- drewcoo 3y agoI think Ponzi schemes are more characterized by their tree structure, not whether or not currency is zero sum.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoLots of things have tree structures -- e.g. pretty much anything with an org chart. In any case, what we're really arguing about is whether it's unsustainable in some sense. If it technically qualifies as a Ponzi according to your preferred definition, but it's sustainable and everyone gets what they signed up for happily, who cares?