Twetch ·
Metanet ICU can be expected to be a toxic community entierly due bto the way it is structured. I have seen this since the BSV split but I have not spoken out publicly about it very loudly because I had no allies at the time. (thread incoming)
Replies
Twetch ·
Subscription forum is a bad business model that will create a bad community. Twetch will create a good community because users pay per interaction.
https://twetch.app/t/b05e159e96b849843cd05b36ac33beff8a797030189dd4674bbda37f3896533a
Twetch ·
In the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study, it was the test subjects who were given the small amount who experienced the dissonance and subsequent need to believe they enjoyed the toil.
the high value transfer test subjects didnt experience dissonance
Twetch ·
On Twetch you pay to create content. In Metanet ICU you pay for other people's content before you see it. Twetch has a real service, Metanet ICU does not. Other people's content that you don't get to evaluate beforehand is not a real service.
Twetch ·
There is a way to fix Metanet ICU's business model and that is for Metanet ICU to provide something that users can evaluate beforehand, such as a proof-of-work string. That would prove that the community can transform energy.
Twetch ·
If payments are tied to the PoW, and not to something after seeing the content, then the Angler Fish model can be used to abuse the system...
A fix to that is reputation. You have to tie long term reputation to that PoW.
PoW on its own is not a solution.
Twetch ·
Quit metanet icu lol
Twetch ·
That makes sense. Thanks!
Twetch ·
I bet that this will never happen because I don't believe that the Metanet ICU community actually has knowledge that can transform energy.
Twetch ·
If someone gives Metanet ICU a great review, you know they have bought in without knowing what they are buying. Thus you don't know if they are saying that due to cognitive dissonance.
Twetch ·
Only people who do not understand this problem would be customers of Metanet ICU. People who do understand it would not buy in.
Twetch ·
This is something that I think would make Bitcoin more valuable if people understood it. https://twetch.app/t/bb512ddf8874ea2f9e31ca3ca940011f91e610ffb7ca257e148335fa58d2eba8
Twetch ·
No you can't use POW to lure people. Deception is more risky than than honesty because of the risk that you won't be believed. That's what makes the cost of the signal worse for decievers. An angler fish's light is not a demonstrated opportunity cost.
Twetch ·
Your point only applies when reputation is involved.
Otherwise, only the signal, which is provably costly considering it's a valid PoW threshold reached, can be considered in isolation.
A third party can't distinguish between honest and dishonest.
Twetch ·
The risk involved has only to do with whether or not someone will believe the signal if payment is made prior to seeing the content.
Unless, reputation is involved, too.
Twetch ·
Its also evident from the beginning that its toxic in the way its built. There are simple CSS errors on the site from the beginning. No one was paid to make any aspect of the site (no one semi professional anyways).
Twetch ·
Making money off your site and not investing in it AT ALL is always a clear STAY AWAY sign for me
Twetch ·
The signal on its own is good enough to ensure honesty on average. People who lie do not need to be identified and punished. They have already punished themselves by creating the signal. They will run out of energy on their own.
Twetch ·
You need more if you want to do better than just "on average." The stable strategy is honesty even if there is no reputation. That doesn't mean no one will ever get away with lying, but it does mean that liars are never better off from lying.
Twetch ·
"Honesty on average" does not imply "liars are never better off for lying"...
If honesty of a signal cannot be determined before payment is made, then the more successful the system is (as in, the more honest,) the more a liar will benefit from using it.
Twetch ·
If people generally trust a certain costly signal to be honest, then if I use that signal to draw people to pay for something dishonest, then I benefit before they learn they were duped.
All I have to do is dupe enough people to make it profitable for me.
Twetch ·
There is actually an equilibrium here where honesty of the signal is concerned, because liars can benefit more than honest signallers.
In fact, honesty requires more work than dishonesty, because an honest person needs to create value and pay the signal.
Twetch ·
There are a few potential solutions to this:
1) Attach reputation to signallers. Turn it from a single game into a repeated game.
2) Defer payment until after consumption of content. Payment can be withheld, or used to signal the quality of the content.
Twetch ·
No it doesn't imply that but read the paper. "Biological Signals as Handicaps" implies that. Liars are never better off from lying in the handicap game.
Twetch ·
I don't believe you are attentively analyzing the criticism I am laying out for the idea you are proposing.
Dishonesty is a viable strategy to profit under the model of PoW as a signal without reputation or user feedback post-content consumption.