I think it's possible for Twetch to be free (or near free, …

I like this idea at 20% of the set rate.

I wonder if twetch set a lowish minimum(2-5cents?) but had a means for a user to increase it, that some people would just let it rain while still serving anti-spam purpose.

Ultimately all this does is reduce the effectiveness of the incentives to push users to create valuable content.

That, I think, is the real selling point of Twetch, not now, but in the coming years.

High quality, and value is rewarded.

(rough estimates)
Let's say...

miner fee + "tipping" amount($.01 or less) + Twetch fee (~$.001) = for each action

Twetch actions would increase, and chance of (most) users to break even (free) each month(lets say) would increase.

Thoughts?...

...Twetch works today.

Lowering costs also decreases barriers to creation on the platform.

Cost is the high pass filter of value.

Lower the cost and lower value gets through.

The real question, and I don't know the answer to this... How do you determine the equilibrium price?

@908

I agree, "spam protection" is important, and it seems alot of people like the idea of potentially profiting off Twetch (which could also be a very good long term model).

I guess the model I'm bringing up would be pretty different than how...

@39

I agree, without some sort of price barrier the content value would drop; and "free" does seem to produce horribly low value content.

As the the equilibrium, how about users set prices?

How do you propose users set prices?

Best I can see is network fee + Twetch fee + user set signalling cost

Then, users set what they see according to the signalling cost, filtering out anything below that cost.

But there are other issues with that...

So Twitter is more valuable than Twetch because it has more people tweeting?

It is not so simple, and the ability to earn on content you produce is *enabled* by the addition of that cost to other users to interact.

There is a balance to be made there.

Making it cheaper to post and interact only has upsides. There are zero downsides. A high cost is simply a barrier to entry - nothing more.

You curate your feed. Decide who to follow, who to block. The more people Twetch, the more valuable the network.

In terms of network effect I would say it's more valuable right now (even though I prefer Twetch).

The increased cost argument sounds similar to me as the fee market in BTC. Why wouldn't you prefer more people liking your content at a lower cost?

As for the fee market, that's a different type of network, with different market features.

In this case, reducing noise is a legitimate benefit. In the case of Bitcoin, any paying transaction that miners are willing to accept is signal enough.

If you see the entire network as a single whole, yes, Twitter is "more valuable" than Twetch.

But that's an aggregation that ignores the qualitative aspects.

On a user experience level, the signal to noise ration on Twetch is already better than Twitter.