Content
@
0 reply
18 recasts
21 reactions
y0b
@y0b
The incentives game is hard to play. It feels often like a cat & mouse (or a hedgehog and crawlies) chase: 1. The team identifies good valuable actions that people are intrinsically motivated to do, and makes them their "new" criteria for allo. For a few days this works, but... 2. Immediately, farmers start doing a lot of that in the most superficial (aka "efficient") way, just to get their hands on free money. The valuable actions of real people are more complex, but not as "efficient" in just fulfilling a simple criteria to get money. Their allo lowers fast. 3. Result: Most of the monthly airdrop allo ends up going to farmers. This repeats next month, with similar bad results. How to escape from this self-defeating prophecy?
2 replies
0 recast
11 reactions
Trigs
@trigs
Probably just implement /impact and cut the farmers out of the picture entirely. Human curation is the only way I see out of it. We have to train ppl to stop engaging with low quality farmed content by promoting high quality curation!
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
y0b
@y0b
It can help, but can also backfire. Farmers are humans too, they are operating from different motivations but can find ways to "curate" and also cooperate in large farmer rings.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
I agree and am very interested in the mechanisms @abundance is experimenting with to maximize quality/high impact curation over farming.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Mike | Abundance π
@abundance
/impact's strategy has been to make it easy to engage in prosocial actions. Farmers want to make some money? Great. How about look for impactful content on FC and stake points on it. Simple enough and improves signal on the network at the same time
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
