That could be and that is unfortunate. This is potentially one of those issues that gets debated forever, but never fully resolved. Like what is quality content, what is abuse, what is proper hive etiquette. I think the fact that some hard questions are being asked about the DHF by movers and shakers is a good thing. I think there needs to be more accountability there and I like the idea of individual downvote options, but I think we also already know that it only takes one or two of the top accounts to irreversibly sway things one way or the other.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There are more objective ways to measure value but we haven't built the infrastructure yet. I always come back to the idea of a blockchain game where all the content is created by the community and the ownership/work for whatever task is represented by NFTs. I'm honestly shocked this doesn't exist somewhere yet... and I'm not talking about Hive either EVM needs to step up on their template creation and business models.
Please write a post elaborating on this from your perspective. I would consider that must-read-content. I think about it all the time, but as good as I am at creating web application code, financial and governance code is tricky stuff and not my area of subject matter expertise. But when someone presents an idea that requires such code, I often times am able to visualize a programmatic solution to solve for it. Sometimes.
Anyway, I guar-an-tee a post about that would be a banger, regardless.
I've posted on this a couple times.
It comes down to better infrastructure so that non-coders can create value within a new system. Like say someone creates a puzzle game. A way to create objective value would be to allow users to create puzzle for that game and have the community upvote the best ones or even a pay-to-play situation. This way puzzle-creators are getting paid for building objective value and making the game better.
The skins model for free-to-play system is even better. Creating a graphical skin only changes appearance and not gameplay, and thus creates no unfair pay-to-win mechanics. There's a lot to be said here.
There's also another option of creating bounties for accomplishing certain tasks. The community can add to the bounty to make it a higher priority. Like if the community wants to see some kind of feature added they can donate money to that bounty and the person that does the work and cash in on it.
Ah I see where you're going. Like the wordpress ecosystem. There are people who actually make "wordpress" the app itself (the metaphor for chain here), then there are people who make plugins (the metaphor for dapps here), or the people who make templates (your metaphor for skins here) and so on.
Or those who make or suggest things for things like games, where people make artwork, music, marketing materials, explainer posts, additional user generated content, like say maps or puzzles for a game that allows them to "mod" it or add to a DLC catalog for it.
To some degree nothing is stopping any of this from happening already, but there are no official guardrails on most of it. If any are even warranted?
Interesting stuff to consider.