BrightFutureGuy 🎩↑Ⓜ️ on Warpcast

Danica Swanson pfp

I've been thinking about this stubborn how-to-get-writers-sustainably-funded problem for a long time, since it pre-dates crypto. It's actually become one of my main intellectual interests over the years. Without getting too far into the weeds, here are a few thoughts: What if Paragraph were to zoom out and focus more on the social layer from a systems perspective -- i.e., think of context, curation, and conversation as the primary paths to value creation, rather than individual writers? Could Paragraph help writers collectively build thriving creative scenes with network effects accruing to the contributors -- writers, editors, curators, preservers, and readers? One of the things that drew me to Paragraph in the first place was the quote-highlight feature, for example. Could Paragraph give contributors places to preserve quotes and respond to them in ways that might help draw others into an ongoing conversation around the work? Maybe in a mini-app?

5 replies

2 recasts

13 reactions

BrightFutureGuy 🎩↑Ⓜ️ pfp

BrightFutureGuy 🎩↑Ⓜ️

many good points in this thread - will come back to it. Quick thoughts before calls: Monetizing something that's free to get (here writing) is always hard. If it's not free it doesn't get reach. There're three angles I see: 1/ your writing has value inside then that's what can be monetized (think data nobody else has), probably not us, some companies possible or very good analytical work of individuals. 2/ your writing just creates "better app experience" for everyone - because it sparks conversation or provides something to read - then it's public goods and can only be rewarded by the network 3/ your writing has a community that values "You" and your journey and they're willing to pay you for sharing your journey with them - sounds great but is actually limiting, because you need to be very focused (clear to read for folks - what do you offer), if you write about broad topics and don't offer people "progression towards something" with their own life, then this model doesn't work

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Danica Swanson pfp

Thanks for the thoughtful input. I do think your #2 above could open paths to long-term sustainability for writers, at least in theory. But public goods funding is... challenging, to put it mildly. CLPs (conversational liquidity providers) whose work sparks good convos are significantly underfunded right now, and that's a systems-level issue, not a Paragraph-specific one. (Moxie tried to address this with everyday rewards, but ran into a number of issues). I like the way @vengist frames the problem: "Storytelling in general creates much network value, but only marketing styles have clear financialization paths. Many stories go untold, and/or the tellers of stories left without resources to continue." https://warpcast.com/vengist/0x43a2054c Another thing I keep returning to is the idea of mutualizing returns from relational work, as described in this piece on "post-cognitive income." https://www.combinationsmag.com/post-cognitive-income/ Anyway, just a few thoughts.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

BrightFutureGuy 🎩↑Ⓜ️ pfp

BrightFutureGuy 🎩↑Ⓜ️

Yes, all of these examples actually only reinforce point 2. - I call it "public goods" but "network goods" is probably better term because I meant that the network (e.g. Farcaster or Paragraph, or Lens) acrues benefits from what you call CLPs. Only option to get paid for this part of work is to receive "public/network goods rewards" - no other sensible way to do it Of course, I may be missing something but I've been thinking about publishing since my first publishing company about 20 years ago. There's also a thin line in defining what is writing for fun, for value, for yourself and why should anyone care 🫠 - You don't charge your friends for jokes you crack in the pub or during dinner. - And they don't pay you when you tell them new story idea you want to turn into book, but maybe they'll buy the book. sorry, it's long rant 😊 have a great Thu!

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Danica Swanson pfp

I think "network goods" is more appropriate too. I just wish the CLPs and other value-add contributors were better rewarded, though it does seem Farcaster is moving in the right direction with that. You make a good point about the thin line. Financializing social relationships can easily backfire. We see a *reduction* in some kinds of value (especially in social contexts) when financial incentives are introduced. The community is not the product, and ultimately it will die if we try to turn it into a product. But in any case, crypto needs to figure out how to provide for the work involved while minimizing risk to the relationships. I like the way the authors of the post-cognitive income piece acknowledge this tension: "...tracking relationships and reputations could make sharing the benefits of relational embeddedness more straightforward, but it also risks corrupting relationships... this is an open problem, not a solved one. Although tradeoffs cannot be eliminated, minimizing them is a worthy pursuit."

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction