zlacker

I feel like having people get paid for upvotes is going to create a massive amount of bad incentives.

>>alexb_+(OP)
Anything you incentivize is going to be abused. That's the way it is. Begun the karma wars have.

>>alexb_+(OP)
It absolutely will. I had toyed with the idea of something like this before, but wasn’t sure what the behavior would look like until I found the cryptocurrency subreddit.

They have a system that rewards a monthly crypto amount based on the number of upvotes you received that surprisingly has an actual value that you can sell for. It’s largely led to a race to the bottom where comments and posts largely ignore any long form discussions or accuracy in favor of majority appeal.

>>alexb_+(OP)
It might be feasible for a community centered on content creators as the site appears to showcase, though for much of Reddit there are all manner of posts including just OPs asking a random question which doesn't need to be monetized but which still would benefit from more eyeballs (via upvotes).

>>alexb_+(OP)
It’s weird because people seem very motivated by imaginary internet points already. I think paying out money doesn’t actually improve anything beyond just brining in people who’s only incentive is a pay out.

>>alexb_+(OP)
So each user puts a dollar a month into upvote cash. I think i upvote ~10 things per day on Reddit. I use Reddit most days, so say 250 things a month. Given the same pattern of behaviour, each one of my upvotes is worth 0.4 cents.

A post getting 1000 upvotes earns $4. That's already quite a lot of upvotes, enough to get on the first page of a reasonably big sub. Posts on r/all (today, which may be abnormal) are at 10-50k, so would earn $40-$200.

$200 would be nice to have! But these don't seem like prizes that would motivate residents of first-world countries, considering that you have to have one of the most-upvoted posts on the whole site to win them.

>>twic+A8
I probably upvote more like 1-2 things a day (on Hackernews, I don’t have a Reddit account). I’m pretty curious what effect it would have, that my opinion would be “worth” (in this sort of system of course—in reality, my opinion is worth very little!) around 10x as much as yours.

>>McAtNi+l2
This is subtley different though. 1$ gets split between all upvotes a person made. So instead of posts getting a value amount directly proportional to upvotes recieved, it will be proportional to how often those users upvote.

In theory I think this would encourage higher quality posts to attract those who upvote rarely.

>>nodesp+vp
I may be wrong, but I believe this is how the subreddit already works. They set a total amount of crypto to be released, and it goes in proportion to the total number of upvotes you receive in comparison to others in a given time window. I think the approaches are largely identical with the exception of the crypto vs direct fiat.

>>twic+A8
your upvote is worth 0.4 cents but the other upvotes are worth different amounts. if i upvoted once each month that's a dollar there.

>>McAtNi+Jr
The difference is that the non.io model rewards more for upvotes from people who have a high bar for upvoting and upvote rarely.

>>alexb_+(OP)
A cap could be put in place to avoid many of these bad incentives. Example: you can’t make more money than your subscription cost per month. Maybe uncashed upvotes could roll over each month, too, so long as you keep your subscription.

>>bowenj+d11
To be clear, this is an entirely different model with a different incentive structure from the other one under discussion. It will not have the same issues. You don't want majority appeal, rather you want niche appeal. The more people like primarily your post and nothing else, the more valuable the upvotes become.