Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
Imagine there is a company - let's call it Foxie - where the manager pays workers for “activity." What sort of activity? Oh, you know, making calls, filing documents, writing code - the usual. The manager diligently tracks the amount of calls, the lines of code, and the number of documents filed in a system called ActivityRank. Whoever does more of these activities rises in the ranks of the company and gets paid more. At the end of the month the boss comes and asks the manager what got done. M: “We made 1,540 calls, filed 43,089 docs, and wrote 748,219 lines of code” B: "But what was the result of all these activities? Did you close any deals? Does the code even work?” How did any of these activities advance our business?” M: “We didn't close any deals and the code doesn't work. But next month we will double the rewards for ‘activity’ so I'm sure we'll have much better results!” Would you buy shares in this company?
9 replies
2 recasts
6 reactions
Blue Cockatoo pfp
Blue Cockatoo
@bluecockatoo
But what if the company simply exists to employ people to be active? So as long as activity points are being earned and the workers are employed, there is no other real end goal. They aren’t “Productivity Points”. And the manager works for a bunch of people that just like to see activity, so they fund it by buying a bunch of Foxie coins and letting the manager hand them out as he sees fit. Is there a problem with activity for the sake of activity? What would change if they chose productivity to be the goal? Or to step out of the analogy: what should Moxie be earned for if not engagement to make it not seem so frivolous?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
I mean obviously they're free to choose whatever metric they want, but if its activity for the sake of activity that's not going to capture much value. Just like a business can choose to employ people to be active or whatever, but it's not going to be profitable if that's all they do. Only if the activity captures value - if it leads to producing things that are in demand - that the activity is beneficial. Same for Moxie. The closer the moxie distribution is to capturing value for communities on Farcaster the more it would both incentivize people to produce more value for the ecosystem, attract more users to it, and create demand pressure for the token it bc the activity is desirable.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Blue Cockatoo pfp
Blue Cockatoo
@bluecockatoo
Do you think it is a matter of what metrics are easy to capture and automate? Engagement is easily measured and quantified without human labor. "Value to the community" of a post is not. That's not even necessarily a quality measurement, and there are overlapping communities here too that might evaluate it's value differently. I see a difference, too, in that the value that Moxie -could-provide for the Farcaster ecosystem is not value that the devs or Moxie holders would necessarily benefit from. Or at least it wouldn't be a direct effect. Moxie itself needs to be able to sustain it's own tokenomics outside of Farcaster, so the incentives are aligned to that, not the needs of Farcaster communities.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
One of the issues is that we've inherited from legacy social media engagement signals (like, recast, reply, follow) that were very useful for the purpose of generating ad revenue, but they're not very good community values signals. We can build on top of Farcaster better value signals, and then it would be just as easy to measure those. I wrote about this (below). That's party the answer. WC atm doesn't support such features and that's why the UI has to be done thru cast actions (or an alternate client), but I do think we can get an HD view of what communities value, and then direct rewards toward those who create this value https://paragraph.xyz/@abundance/extended-reactions
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction