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
Another moderation risk is that whoever is moderating has an incentive to delete people’s potentially successful posts and repost under their own or a friend’s alt account

>>wlesie+9i
I think the simplest around that is to pay the moderators. So given the $2

- $1 goes to the server

- $.67 goes to the users you upvote

- $.33 goes to the moderator(s) of the group you upvoted in.

So there's actual incentive to want to mod to begin with, and less incentive to risk that by trying to game for post votes as well.

Now ofc I already see a half dozen issues here, so we'd need to deviate strongly from reddit to make this work:

- you can't just create subs willy-nilly. You don't even want that in the beginning anyway because you shouldn't splinter a small community. There would need to be a formal way to talk to an admin and request any new sub. Or at least, we need to delineate from a monetized sub vs. non-monetized, with ways to transition from one to the other.

- This encourages small mod groups and you don't want mods to be able to pick/kick at will now that money is involved. Again, new mods would need some more admin intervention for moderator changes.

- As you can assume, A senior mod won't be equal to a newly recruited mod. So it probably isn't the best idea to spread that mod fund equally per se.

- Mod posts would need to be taken into account as well. Maybe moderators (and possible alts) can't make money off their own posts to avoid double dipping

Lot of interesting ideas to go about. So I hope this site does at least get some visibility

>>johnny+2w1
That sounds good on paper, but I can only imagine it would lead to even worse lowest-common-denominator chasing than exists on reddit right now. Why would the moderators choose to enforce quality standards when crappy (but highly upvoted) memes make them more money?

>>dablue+u32
Ideally that's up to the community. The ideal counter-reaction of this is "Well I'll make my own sub, and attract people tired of memes". In this model, there will hopefully be a sizeable subscriber community, so you don't need to appeal to the masses if the ones willing to put their money where they mouths make the move.

But if not, and if memes are what subscribers want to use all their votes on, well... the experiment fails in my eyes (even if it may be a success as a business).

That's also why I feel we need at least two tiers of votes, personally. There will be times where you want to vote on a cheap but funny meme but you don't exactly want to say "yes, this is the content I pay for". A version of vote that says "I don't mind it but obviously you shouldn't make money on this" may help curb that as more of the super votes go to actual quality content. But nothing is bullet proof when you let the people decide.