zlacker

>>jjcm+(OP)
The idea of posters getting real money instead of fake internet points when their posts do well seems interesting, but maybe an unintentional experiment in unintended consequences. Moderation will be extremely important to prevent low-effort memes and content regurgitation and the like from saturating your main channels. Have you considered how you will encourage moderation and keep it free from the corrosive influence of quid quo pro? (hey moderator, you overlook this spam post and maybe I cut you in on the profits)

When real money is involved on the internet the worst kinds of stuff results, and it takes a lot of effort to avoid it. How's that going to work?

None of this is to take away from your accomplishments here, by the way. The exact opposite in fact, you've got an interesting enough idea that it prompts interesting questions of the mechanics.

P.S. do you have any long-term plans to IPO this if it becomes successful? If not, some kind of guarantee that this platform is immune to enshittification would probably be very, very popular.

>>idiots+oh
Ditto. I hate this idea. We all know the type of content that revenue drives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc. I want a site that rewards quality, not view counts.

>>lanza+jC
> I want a site that rewards quality, not view counts.

That's what the objective of the site is. Viewing doesn't reward anything (whereas views do reward in the video you just linked). My hope as well is that for nonio, knowing you're contributing a share of your monthly pool will make people more conscientious about what they upvote, thus improving quality.

>>jjcm+1F
As an option, to rank items, you can use the amount of money that the item has earned instead of just the number of upvotes. You can even replace upvotes number in the UI as well. This way frequent meme-upvoters will have less sway over more picky users. It'd be easier to register astroturfing accounts and to promote something to the top, though.