Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan J. Shaw
@rjs
At last the debate arrives at our hidden presuppositions! @vijay believes that a 70% cashback parameter will promote more participation in AF than an e.g. 30% cashback parameter, and therefore will produce more revenue overall for *some* channels. I believe the number of subscribers in my channel is a result of *my* hard work, not $ALFA games. I don't need the gamification - my game is delivering cold, hard content 👊 So this is why I'm annoyed that my work is being potentially discounted down 70%, and why @vijay is annoyed *his* work to build an active subscriber base is being discounted by me in turn. Specifically, the 70% parameter would need to consistently bring in 2.6x more subscribers with the e.g. 30% parameter for @vijay's argument to hold. Who's correct? I think he and I are on the same page here -- it needs to be a configurable parameter which each channel can play with and discover what works best for themselves.
12 replies
3 recasts
23 reactions
eirrann | he/him🎩🔵
@eirrann.eth
Excellent topic of debate. Here's another question: to what extent is this immaterial if prominent creators and subscribers alike are losing interest/belief in the platform en masse? Can Vijay and team turn the ship around? I hope so, and am betting yes with my continued presence and focus on building my channel. What will it take to restore interest amid the fickle market of web3?
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
vijay
@vijay
I don’t think you’re incorrect. I have pretty strong conviction that early adoption of new crypto products is driven by speculation, and the more cashback, the more speculation. This is a growth strategy. Maturity of our platform has always included a plan to ensure this amount is configurable, it just wasn’t selected for the Day 1 default.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
alexesc 🎩
@alexescd.eth
If they remove that cashback percentage, they'll turn an interesting model that combines elements of DeFi with subscriptions into a traditional Web2 subscription model that isn't working. There are many subscription systems through newsletters and others on Web2, where most of the money goes to the creator. Wouldn't keeping the current model, where subscribers get a share, incentivize more people to subscribe and support the platform? In the current model, I'm motivated by the content, but also by what I receive from my subscription. If it were only for the content, I'd only be subscribed to a maximum of 4 or 5 channels. I receive Alfa that I can invest in the channel I'm subscribed to, or in any other I would like to support to grow. It's a well-thought-out model. I support you, but I also receive something from that support.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
AlvarLord
@amartos
It's not a bad approach that the cashback will be configurable by the channel owner. Each one will adjust it to what they believe is most beneficial according to their interests. In the end everything will tend to balance out, it will not make sense to put only 5% or put 99% In any case, there should be a limit on the number of changes in that configuration, so as not to cause harm with sudden modifications in short periods of time. c Could be tested.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tony
@0xt0ny
I never understood AF for creators when hypersub exists...why are all the staking games necessary? Because people are not there to subscribe to a person, they're in it to farm like a defi protocol
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
duma0x.degen.eth
@duma0x.eth
oooh thx ser 500 $degen
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
whimsi
@whimsi.eth
when i first looked at alfafriends mechanics, it felt like there was only one real way to be a winner - get in early, farm alfa and stake in your own channel, cancel subs when you feel like you have enough alfa and then extract value - the whole system is built on needing constant new users to come in and as soon as that stops, the only people with +ve cash flow are the ones who farmed alfa early and cancelled all subs then for stage 2 of value extraction (where we’re at currently), it just requires moving the staked alfa out your channel when your sub count diminishes and you have no active channels subbed to (so the alfa penalties no longer matter) and staking into another channel with subscribers until you’ve extracted wealth there to me this was always gonna go one way, it was just a matter of when the ponzi music stopped playing - until they change the % split between staking and direct subs, i can’t see this not being the ‘optimal’ strategy
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kyle B🍖🧾✨️🎭🎩
@prouddegen.eth
I'd say the 33 people who are l3ft for me definitely are there put of loyalty by now lol.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0xISTP🇰🇷
@rookiest
I think hypersub would suit you better.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
stellabelle🎩
@stellabelle
100 $DEGEN
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
bluebe
@bluebe
Your tweets always make me think.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sirlupinwatson.degen
@sirlupinwatson.eth
You could also optimize the allocation with a quadratic formula... First 10 sub would be 90% to 70% 20-80 sub would be 70% to 50% 80-100 + sub degen to 50%-30% Easy math
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
