july

Working through a mental model rn

1. Good content is harder to make than bad or stolen content

2. Given a quantity incentive w/o quality penalty, bad content will always proliferate faster

3. Quality is group specific and really hard to measure

So until you know what your group loves, rewards accelerate bad actors?

weird internet kid. helping Creators with /seemore. yapping on /okbanger. curating in /creators and /cameron. dev + veteran + HBS. 
seemore.tv/cameron 🫡

architect // if you're building consumer or b2b products in the design or construction space, let's chat! // icbk.me/huugo.fc // seemore.tv/free/fc/huugo.eth

Imo rewards will always skew towards bad actors or actors that don’t need/want rewards and especially when distribution is P2P.

Curators reqd 💯

Until norms are socially enforced

I think one of the best ways to figure out what your group loves is to create lots of (some of it maybe bad!) content. This volume speeds up the feedback loop and lets you discover what really resonates with people. However, there's many examples that prove my idea at least incomplete, if not wrong!

/fieldway: eLearning on how to lead software teams.

CoinDesk Director of Product Management.

Casts are my own and don't represent anyone but me.

i appreciate the sentiment a lot, but i'm trying to build internet scale apps so i gotta try stuff to fix it 🫡🫡

My take is that bad actors are unstoppable. People will always find a way to scam or farm, and a percent of other people will fall for it.

All we can do is curate our circle and reward the good actors we see. Encourage them and help them feel good; motivate them to keep creating and contributing.

Raise the tribe.

What’s the diff between open and closed resource?

nah. given:

1. unoriginal content uses closed resource, original content can use closed and/or open resource

2. open resource takes more time to source than closed resource

3. content spreads equally

then: unoriginal content spreads faster

disrupt at least one from “given” to make “then” apparently wrong

but without bad actors, how do we know what is good? 🤔

i think (hope) one can design an incentive scheme that avoids this by surfacing the good over time while requiring skin in the game. not with a quality penalty but with upfront cost and remuneration based on perceived value

co-founder, terminally onchain family-man, building products on frontier solutions w frontier people.
/grey
lesgreys.com

I wrote this last year actually and most of it still applies 🫡

I wrote this last year actually and most of it still applies 🫡

https://www.wysr.xyz/p/fast-rope-into-farcaster

Hey @cameron! Trying to grow on Farcaster--quite a different vibe from Twitter which is where I "grew up"--what would you do if you were starting over?

Studying@cool uni
Interning@cool bank
Replyguying@farcaster

What do you mean?

Afaict those folks are v productive at growing their goal metric (farmed rewards)?

Not necessarily ‘bad actors’, just unproductive ones

I’m assuming “bad” content is a subset of “bad content” so in that case it would make it more bad

but if there is “bad” content that is actually “good content” like deep fried memes or w/e then it’d be more good

Bad is prob a red herring here and the better MM is “content your group likes” tho

Sounds reasonable

But if you have “bad” content that proliferates faster than other “bad content”

Does that make it more good or more bad

For 1) it’s speed as much as difficulty, “originally  content” will always(!!) take longer

content follows the rule of lowest common denominator w/o strong group dynamics = relatability

i think it's just a matter of time before niche channels emerge as places where quality isn’t merely measured— it’s cherished !!!

authenticity is the currency here (or at least that's how I'd like it to stay) - i believe this is FC final mission