teddit

random thoughts on onchain content:

1. for most people with taste (including artists, creators, etc), its actually demotivating and not compelling when they see bad content earn more money onchain than good content; obviously bad/good is subjective, but a turnoff nonetheless

2. most of the major onchain “curators” (i.e. people who can move markets to drive earnings for creators) are people with influence but not necessarily with taste; obviously not true for all onchain content models, but true for most “viral” pieces of onchain content and memes

whoever solves this wins

helping build farcaster | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina | “lucky me, lucky mud”

The cynic in me thinks these systems are working as intended. They're optimized for quantity, not quality, which is how the tech industry values its products.

Average consumers don't care for high quality content if they feel like their contributions of their own (unknowingly low quality) content have value.

Agree with all your points, but not in the context of crypto content!

Those who have been most rewarded (financially, amassing followings, etc) have often been first movers or friends of already influential members. Talent and quality is rarely at the top unfortunately.

And while that creates a culture problem for the people who are in here 24/7, infra providers can shrug their shoulders because they can maximize transaction volume if people are fighting over whatever the kingmakers at the time are pushing, or whatever financial incentives there are to produce slop in mass, be it onchain "content" or just posts on social networks.

hmm good food for thought. 

initial reactions (may be unsound)
- Substack is antithesis of this imo
- the most influential creators are masterful at what they do, consistently put out high quality
- 90% of consumers don’t contribute content on social platforms