Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
Moxiesplaining Journal Day 7: No-Shame Moxiebaiting Last week Far Scores got an upgrade: Far Boosts, at a rate of +1 boost for every 100K of Moxie TVL in Fan Tokens. Has this change eased up Moxiebaiting of the harmful/disruptive sort? I hope so. Because there's a more subtle point to be made about pursuing engagement from high Far Score casters in hopes of earning Moxie. My current Far Score is 1.188 organic + 7.295 boost = 8.483. Maybe that’s high enough to attract some Moxiebaiters? In case it is: I don’t want anyone who’s engaging in good faith to be shamed for having financial motives for interacting. We're playing positive-sum games here; we want the network to win. If replies are interesting and not a burden on people's time, who cares whether the motives are "pure?" Save the shaming for those harming the network. Leave good-faith Moxiebaiters alone. (Moxiesplaining Journal is a daily window into my observations, learnings, and the view of Moxie from where I sit as a writer + editor).
6 replies
0 recast
11 reactions
Tokenized Human
@tokenizedhuman
Sorry, you lost me at Moxiebaiting. No offence. Only kidding! We can't get away from the fact that all engagement is now monetized, so it's impossible to splinter out people's motives anyway, whether they are purely with the intention of getting paid, or otherwise, or a mix, which is most likely (relative thinking location at the back of one's head non determined). If you like a cast, engage, if not, don't. The creator has the control to decide who gets the benefit from Moxie or not.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
LOL at "Sorry, you lost me..." But seriously... one thing I keep emphasizing is that all social media engagement was *already* monetized. That part hasn't changed with the introduction of Moxie. The difference with Moxie is that 1) it's all out in the open (instead of hidden/indorect), and 2) finally the *users* can actually benefit directly from the economic model, instead of having the most or all of the value of their labor siphoned off by extractive entities. I imagine you knew all this already, but it's worth restating anyway. :)
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Tokenized Human
@tokenizedhuman
I think the one dangerous side effect to this is the corruption of ones own morals at the expense of a better monetary return, and that's dangerous. If provocative material is the biggest money spinner, and I value income over anything else, I'll do anything to pursue that goal, lying and perpetrating falsehoods, that may cause greater societal damage, if necessary. https://warpcast.com/tokenizedhuman/0xa099ec9f
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
Hmmm... I don't think I'm on the same page there. I mean, I do think that in some cases there are good reasons to be concerned about the potential effects of introducing monetization to social interactions. But I don't think the blame for any such danger should be laid at the feet of monetization per se. Especially not in the case of Moxie. If anything I think of Moxie as a potential *corrective* to some of the structural factors that drive humans to pursue financial gain in ways that damage the social fabric.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
