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
That makes sense in principle. I just don’t know what it would look like in implementation. They can’t hand out an allowance every day to thousands of people on metrics/impacts that can’t be objectively measured. Would really like to know what you would do if the redesign of the tokenomics were up to you.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
Moxie has some really smart UI to it in that it's supposed to eliminate the need to tip, but then it requires users to engage in a lot of other behavior (the whole aspect of researching/buying FTs) which actually complicates it. Sure there are a lot of things that are easy to measure but have little value, and other things that are harder to measure and have a lot of value. It's not easy to measure the expected valuation of a company in the stock market, for example, yet people do it and make money that way (is the company's value an "objective measurement"?) A similar logic can be applied to content on FC, but probably I'll have to do a longer writeup about this.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction