Trying to find the humor is all. I asked questions. Didn't get answers. Went to look on my own. Took what I saw on the surface. Tried to wrap my head around it.
I left several comments under that post. I wouldn't say anything I said is negative. Aside from what I saw not being enough for me personally to start using that site and only that site.
I had no idea it was being interpreted in this fashion until now. Now that I've learned. I'd sooner laugh it off and move on. Shouldn't be that big of a deal.
P.S. I staked some LEO just to be like that...
I think I'm missing context because I haven't looked at the other post in a while.
It seems like a lot of people are tilting hard over this rollout.
LEO people especially.
The Discord is heated.
The marketing for this service certainly doesn't align with how it actually works.
100% ad-sharing with content creators >> 99% share to stake holders is jarring to say the least.
Since reaching the bare minimum to receive ad revenue will be next to impossible for majority currently creating content over there, I'd try that consumer angle. Eventually that clicked with me. Consumers are stakeholders, too. So if they're receiving ad revenue in this fashion, the content creator is receiving ad revenue indirectly from their votes. One way to spin it.
Then again it might be a much needed wakeup call if getting 10 views a day on something equates to an impossibility. A feature like this may need a little time to fail miserably before it's decided the numbers need refactoring. Perhaps you'd like me to push this agenda personally. It can be arranged.
It's as simple as actually trying and then showing that even a top earner on the platform can't make the cutoff, or showing that I can barely make it whatever the case may be.
Been thinking about this more. Probably too much.
The situation here goes like this: Write a post, push it out, get those views, bring them this way. Do it again, and again and again. That's how you get your ad revenue with no guarantees, and the local consumer base isn't large enough (does inleo even have 200 consumers roaming about constantly).
Each time is a new set of eyes because the consumer base is not here, like it would be on something like Youtube or anywhere else where these ad revenue shares actually work. Every post is like starting fresh with no market.
Impossible is probably the wrong word. Be difficult to earn consistently. Stakeholder role is guaranteed earnings from this. Stakeholder loses if millions of eyes suddenly show up but nobody signs on for consumer perks. Stakeholder earns more if content creators are viewed less, meaning stakeholders are incentivized to not share content like a consumer would. This doesn't gel.
Also, people search, quickly get their info, and leave. I'd say that's normal behavior online. That approach is on its way out the door. Now with AI, people ask, get their answers, don't even need to visit the sites.
I could probably keep going but there's no need. The solution I find every time is to grab the consumers and keep them around. Each post generating outside views is free advertising for all products on chain provided they sign on. Most viewers won't even know about the perks. They wouldn't know they could stand a stronger chance of earning the ad revenue from the content their viewing than the creator. Wouldn't know they could earn from a leaving a comment. Wouldn't know they can earn by supporting rather than throwing their money away. So many missed opportunities for this entire ecosystem.
Most likely I won't be creating content anymore so this isn't for me anyway. I think I'm just sick and tired of the stagnation and want to see something here thrive before I die and that's it.
Next time I'll just stick to "lol fud"
This platform always gets stuck within the stagnant backwater during this time of the cycle.
It is indeed annoying and frustrating.
I consider this whole ad sharing this a highly experimental test.
But it needs time to play out.
Even a result of abysmal failure will still teach a valuable lesson.
So yeah maybe the 6-12 month comment was indeed the thing to say.
1000 new sign ups. Not one reaches 200 views yet combined 1000 people generate 200000 views and this is being called "not enough effort, try harder" and "thank you for your ad revenue." Signed, Mr Stakeholder.
Tough sell.
One thing I've never seen before is a paying consumer earning ad revenue. With something like this system LEO is attempting it's almost as if the consumer is the one in charge of handling where the ad revenue goes. Their votes AND their eyes count and they earn. How interesting.
Have you ever read my ramblings about the neglected consumer role here on Hive and these second layer options? Can't even watch a stream now without seeing that money flying around. Platform takes a cut, content creator gets their cut, consumer is out x dollars. Staking tokens and providing consumer perks like curation reward (earning for tipping) and now even ad revenue. Consumers love supporting content creators. It's billions of dollars annually. We have the systems in place (or in development) to provide consumers what they want to spend their money on, yet we sit around scratching our heads wondering where to get "investors" for our tokens. Those investors are called "consumers".
Since the role is neglected consistently, we now have a platform paying out ad revenue, but 200 views is next to "impossible". These things drive me crazy.
I promised myself I'd stop talking about it and even wrote a post where I "retired" from even thinking about it. Yet once again I'm seeing potential in that angle. We have products, perks, but no consumers. Everywhere else consumers outnumber content by a huge margin. Blah blah blah not sure why I even talking about it...
If you're able to see what I'm seeing, and find a way to make others see it, all the power to you.
I'd align with this comment but honestly the whole basis is
Which imo is not impossible at all, it just requires leg work
And this is exactly a way to reward consumers, if you are not a content creator and you do not want to bring in views, fine, power up some $leo and benefit from the lurking.
But not for free, have skin in the game, I've yet to see someone come up with a way to reward consumers just for being there, providing clicks, without any other type of interaction (is it even possible?).
I've been watching consumers be rewarded in this fashion for over seven years.
Buy some tokens, then vote. That's a consumer being rewarded with clicks. Adding more perks doesn't hurt. All these methods are sustainable since it involves outside money coming in.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way. It's called "curation reward" instead of consumer reward. The market was encouraged to automate the process and not even look at the content. And very few have been interested in bringing new money in the door. Sitting around waiting for crypto investors to fall from the sky while creating products meant for consumers to spend money on. That trend should have been kicked to the curb several years ago. Consumers are spending billions on content nowadays. A consumer can sign on, stake some tokens, and do all the things they do with their money, except this time the money isn't spent and their behavior is rewarding.
I've been a big proponent (and I think we're gonna change this) of not calling them curation rewards and stop talking about curation, and use the keyword support, supporters and supporter rewards.
Support this author and get a bit in return. Not back.
The issue with how we framed things since stinc is that you vote with 1 dollar and from those rewards you receive half instead of framing it as:
The author gets $10 from their content, and from that content they share half with their supporters - as in, the creator shares the rewards to support back those who support them.
It's the same thing, just framed differently, more viewed as in a shared reward economy between the creator and the supporters, instead of a transaction where voters allocate rewards to get some of them back if they have stake.
Ofc this is a paraphrased comment that I'm writing while doing other things, but you get the idea.
It's not the concept, it's how you sell it and how many people are willing to buy it.
We could create a supporter economy going instead of a creator economy.
Things since stinc revolve around creators, not consumers, and thus all the terms revolve around content creation, not consumption.
Spin the narrative so that things stay the same but are perceived differently, and we might get those consumers we've been talking about since forever.
Hopefully this creates enough incentives for people to actually get the views. 200 views is not that hard, it requires 20 people to comment on it, you replying, them replying back, a few organic views from lurkers and a couple shares in web2 and you have 200 views.
It requires some work though, and most hivers are not known for wanting to do the work and got the extra mile without concrete incentives, lol
I've been able to hit 200 views numerous times. Total, across all frontends. Well over 200, numerous times.
My market/following will read my work on one of the top three frontends. What makes this difficult and even annoying is the fact I'd have to tell them at the start of the post to stop reading and click the link leading to inleo and read the post there.
And there's no way I'd do that because it's an inconvenience for the consumer. I could post from Inleo, but majority will be reading it elsewhere. I and several others did not build our brands on LEO products.
200 views means one qualifies for the smallest share possible. So there's that, too. For me, I could probably earn more by voting comments under my post.
Don't get me wrong though. Maybe some people do need more incentives. But I think for the most part, people are working and trying to get views, with incredible content that goes unnoticed, because there are no fucking consumers here! lol
Never, in the history of me, did I ever want to work for advertisers. Still don't. I also don't want to work for LEO stakeholders scooping up the leftovers. If I designed this system you folks are attempting, that money wouldn't go to stakeholders if content creators don't make the cut. The money would go into a pool and grow, waiting to be paid out to content creators who do qualify. However, seeing how it could potentially reward consumers with ad revenue clicks with me. Far more likely to sell that concept since consumers outnumber creators by a huge margin, and they spend the money anyway. If this system manages to attract them and keep them around, I'd be impressed.
Paying people to create content and attract views is wasteful if the consumer doesn't stick around.
Dunno man, this is still said with a mindset of creating hive content for hive (few) readers... But if someone shares their content on X, reddit, medium and facebook, using a link to inleo, those views you talk about - which you are correct, the content consumption on hive comes from peakd or ecency mainly and it is tiny - won't matter compared to the views one can get from audiences outside of hive.
About the second part of your comment I cannot really argue because it's a matter of opinion and mindset, which I fully respect and understand though I don't share.
In the end it all depends on how people look at the scenario displayed by inLeo. People can either argue for or against it, all I know is that I'm in for bringing in outside ad capital to the hive ecosystem and hopefully, hopefully, get a flywheel or snowball effect going.
Yeah. Link sharing content consumers would be helpful. Wrote about them once. That's almost three years old. This "mindset" has grown tired and is throwing in the towel. I didn't build a following on other platforms. Wasted my time, here.
It's good to see some are catching up to these ideas and at least trying. I get it and wish you all the best of luck.
I might revisit this in 6-12 months just to see how things are going.
I wonder if this bout of heated confusion will lead to you qualifying for evergreen rewards.
Hint: Probably not, if it all takes place on Discord. (Those ads don't care if you're happy or mad.)