Middlemen, Builders, Motivation, Profits and Fairness

Continuing the discussion from Why are you excited about MaidSafe?:

[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:22, topic:859, full:true”]
Sorry, I was following dlasoffs post and it appears to be advertising for an app on safe network which would give users 99% of revenue back, 1% going to the app which is acting as a middleman between artists and consumers. (correct me if I am wrong). My question was about what distinguishes this from spam? If it is informative/useful/cheap/promotes safecoin or whatever is irrelevant to what I’m getting at.The web post was railing against middlemen, so I was also asking what was the distinguishing aspects. I’m asking:
A) Is this advertising/Spam or not?
B) If not, why not?
C) Are we Ok with advertising/Spam on the forum?
D.) Can we/should we distinguish and how?
E) At what point does information become spam?
F. What distinguishes dlasoff from a middleman? (in response to dlasoff)

Hope that helps, I’m not accusing anyone I’m just asking what I think are pertinent questions, given the whole reason for Maidsafes existence -sorry for being unclear.

My concern really, is that at some point in the future we become flooded with links to the best new app that provides a for- profit service when a non or low profit app would do same job but put more back into economy. The paid app would get more free advertising here at the other’s expense - just based on how good you are at PR. Is this a concern or not is the issue in a nutshell.[/quote]

Does the SAFE network offer some kind of content search/index/publishing platform by default and IF it does not will it be up to builders to build something along these lines like what @dllasoff’s and @we_advance propose with the Network99 idea? Each content provider could and should publish their own stuff but what about finding it? Will this not require some type of search app or index or something? Who builds this and how does/do the builder(s) get rewarded for doing so?

Am I totally misunderstanding these words on the Dev page of maidsafe.net:

By introducing the SAFE networks very own crypto currency, safecoin, developers now finally have an Open Source business model that works. By coding your safe wallet ID into your application(s), the network will automatically pay safecoins to you based on how much the application is utilised by end users. No longer will app developers need to morph themselves into support experts or advertising resellers, you can now focus on making great applications with a revenue stream already built in.

I’m not trying to argue with you @Al_Kafir. I’m looking for clarification myself. What do we as the community expect from developers (I’m one of these so I want to know what others think)? Do we expect them to work for nothing, build for no reward? Perhaps I’m totally missing what @dllasoff is saying but I don’t think I am. The Network 99 idea is not a for profit venture. It will only make the safecoin the network pays. 99% of that to the artist and 1% to the devs building/maintaining the software… Am I wrong?

1 Like

Personally I think we as a community could use a bit of peer-pressure to have people put for-profit apps under a different category… What are thoughts on that?


I’m not sure we should discriminate between paid and unpaid, beyond requiring that this be made clear.

If we want people to build apps, they are either going to need some other means of support, or to be able to profit from their app.

I abhor spam, but posting information about a project/app in an appropriate forum is not spam. Spam to me is mindless cross posting to places where it is not appropriate.

I do share concerns about money buying sales (e.g. through advertising), rather than quality, features, usefulness etc being rewarded by sales, so I think this is a useful discussion to have.


Look, spam is spam. Spam is bullsh*t.

When somebody like many of you and certainly me, because I can speak for myself, comes on the maidsafe.org forum with an established reputation of being someone who is committed to building the SAFE Network and asks people under ANY category for help to build an app: BY DEFINITION THIS CANNOT BE SPAM!!!

So, I happily repeat: If you want to build Network99, let’s build it. All apps are middlemen by the way. They exist between users and the people who built the app for profit or not. There’s nothing inherently virtuous about non-profit and Network99 is a for-profit app being designed to work w/ the SAFE Network in EXACTLY THE WAY it is supposed to work:

The demand on the app gets paid Safecoin by the SAFE Network NOT the users who use the app. It earns money…doh!!! I’m not going to explain myself further.

While we’re on the subject, let me throw something out there that’s really bound to piss a few of you off: my opinion of what goes on here on this forum is mixed probably just like yours, I imagine. I’m a grown up and realize that most people won’t agree w/ me on a lot of things. Many of the people on this forum will eventually NOT have much to do with ACTUALLY building the SAFE Network. Most of the people are happy to throw out their two cents and do nothing more or they genuinely have questions/ideas which justifies and makes this forum so valuable.

There is nothing wrong with looking for people on the maidsafe.org forum who are wanting to take their participation to building the SAFE Network to the next level. That’s what I’m doing when I share what I’m up to building Network99, SAFEx and BuildItHub with other people I’ve met through this forum. I’m just getting started…maybe, @David should consider banning me now if he has a different idea and thinks that what I’m doing is wrong. I don’t and I won’t because what’s at stake here is the development and the urgency to build apps for the SAFE Network. Where else should I go to find people who are already pioneers in their thinking? I’ll figure that out but this is one of the places for sure.

And, while we’re at: too bad if someone who doesn’t understand what spam is has a problem with me promoting the voluntary aggregation of forum participants to the stuff I’m working on. If this is a problem, then maidsafe.org is merely a mentally-masturbatory forum and nothing more, no offense to the good folks who made this possible and for whom I am personally grateful, specifically, @David.

Controversy is the stuff that progress is made of…if I’m rubbing a few people the wrong way? Man, that makes me feel good and indicates that I’m getting somewhere. This is a universal among people who get things done. I’m looking for my running mates…run w/ me.


My 2 cents: I won’t try to come up with some definition of what is spam or not and I won’t define some specific rules about what we allow in the forum at his point. Right now we don’t have a problem. If or when people start complaining that “hey, this forum is flooded with spam!” then we’ll do something about it, set up some rules or restrictions or whatever is necessary.

For now all we need is some common sense. If you see a post that you think should be deleted then notify me about it.

Let’s not waste our time trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Use that time to build some cool stuff! :sunny:


@David Thank you for your intelligent and useful response. I couldn’t agree more!


Let me suggest a definition for Spam- any ap, service, approach or business model that tries to coerce your attention. Needs permanent de-listing from honest search and trending. No one has a right to interrupt you, and thieve your time and attention, or pay another to do this. Self determination and free expression will not survive technologies that are by their nature increasingly invasive if someone doesn’t get this right on a wide scale.

Still sometimes I think, minds are connected and there is nothing we can do about it except be in denial about it.


Warren, how do you feel about advertising?


Yes, this would be a very good solution. I was thinking of going a step further which would also maybe offer an alternate/complimentary reputation system. Basically dev pods would check out all apps that wanted to have the Maidsafe “kitemark”. The apps have to display how well they are adhering to a set of basic criteria. IE have headings such as “basic profit taken” “clean code checked” “open source” or whatever is actually community agreed criteria to qualify.
Ps this other issue was resolved in the other thread with the suggestion to post app promotions under a different heading I think.


Calm down dear…I wasn’t making an ad-hominem attack and the issues I raised were resolved in the previous thread with the suggestion to just post app promotional material under a different/specific topic heading. If you read my post again, the only question I posed directly to you, was - What is it that differentiates yourself from the middlemen that you rail against in your advert? It was a genuine question and if you take offence from that then…well I make no apology and there is no right to not feel offended…different things offend different people.

I also specifically stated that:

Insofar as your answers to my actual question goes "


and the illigitimate arguments from authority don’t really cut it with me, but I can’t really explain without further masturbation. I do think you missed both the point of my post and an opportunity to explain/promote though ironically.

Sorry for being such a mental wanker btw…lol. There’s quite a few on here would definitely agree!

This might be helpful and quite thought provoking - relevant in regard to trolling and other issues that moderators have to deal with and where it can lead.
Why real name commenting doesn’t work

@russell I’ve already had a sizeable bee in my bonnet about advertising, but after watching the recommended Adam Curtis video The Century of the Self - 1. Happiness Machines last night, that bee is now the size of a 747! Have you watched that yet?

oh man, 58 minutes! Is it something I can watch will performing a mindless task? I’ve got some work to do today, but its VFX cleanup, and I’d like to watch it/listen to it.

EDIT: “This series is banned on YouTube because of the secrets it contains.” heh.


Yes you can watch while doing something else because the information is not that new, but the story is worth hearing (for me) for various reasons, and made quite an impact because while I vaguely understood this, I had not realised how deliverate, co-ordinated, and effective these methods had been in directing social change. Seeing it laid out on a timeline and going back so far, and in the context of the whole of the twentieth century made the learning much deeper for me. If you watch I’ll be very interested to hear your take on this, and your answer to your own question (before and after maybe :-). Hope you enjoy too!

EDIT: I made a mini transcript with timings - will PM it to you.

Please post the mini transcript here (or maybe a another thread about it). I did just listen to the whole of it and found the author’s view of The New Deal and defining that as good citizenry quite laughable, but it made me think.


@russell I think if we had honest ad free sponsor free search and trending we could align the interest of buyers and sellers in a way that would bring on a revolution in product quality and value. I suspect the ad industry actually pits buyers and sellers against each other and works specifically to ensure we don’t have level business playing fields or markets. While this undermines innovation and working markets it also means capture of the media and state by money. Basically the channel fills with the noise of money for money’s sake.

In the system I’d like to see ad firms would spend their time on honest product information but it would only come at the end of an end user inspired search for a specific product. There is no right to interrupt people, not right to coerce their attention or steal their time. In my opinion because of the threat that sponsorship or these activities in particular present to any kind of power sharing or stable quality of life or rights situation, because of these I’d criminalize these and where there were taxes dis incentivize with tax to the point of prohibitive penalty. The basic technology of search should free us from demand creation advertising and its barrel scraping downward spiral economic effects (people make poor impulse by choices- get sick and poor as a result.)

So as you can see I think there is a theft of attention, which when its business driven (despite the difficulty of keeping a business going and markets working) needs to be prohibited for the benefit of all. And even where someone opted in I think all the money in the transaction should go to the end user. Imagine product that weren’t driven by marketing but by needs of both buyer and seller. But I am not adverse to someone answering questions in a private firewalled way and allowing some kind of monitoring to enable automatic shopping etc. I just think that should be a person by person thing and that all the data on a person belongs to the person not the firm(s.) and needs to be withdrawn at will.

I think ‘Century of the self’’ is the single most important film I’ve ever watched. I must have watched it like 6 times in a row originally…the way I looked at the world changed.

I think the most shocking realisation for me, is how easily manipulated we are.

All the Curtis stuff is in the ‘must watch’ category…it’s just shocking the amount of theory, turned ideology has been unleashed on the unsuspecting masses over the last 100 years. For example (in the film ‘The Trap’) Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty.” Positive/Negative …shocking :frowning:


Yes giving people freedom is a great thing, but that freedom is hard to exact in today’s world. The disconnection from propaganda and control is not simple, but it is known. True freedom will mean realising some facts about us all, that we are mm away form evil most of the time, we can be manipulated into beliefs that are very false etc. It’s not a simple proposition, but a right one.


Even our disciplines may be middle men. If all there is is mind then that’s all we’ve ever been studying. Instead of using dream implements we could could do it directly. It may be, even if we didn’t recognize it, that all our progress came from more direct contemplations. It seems that our disciplines are leading to their own ends. They all point to mind or back at it. Just realizing this could be the beginning of the end of implements or middle men.

This is where certain types of skepticism are frustrating to say the least. They always attempt to appeal to in place notions of necessity in order to say that we are powerless and have to just accept it. In considering the possible potency of a pure mental situation above they will try to call it a hell or a nightmare, a madness that would be the worst of all possible states. Their implicit message is always: keep on slaving and understand that even that is too good for you. That what ever necessity regime they are tying to push is inevitable, just and good and that any opposition to it is evil. People that were destined for hell could be treated as if they were already there and it would be righteous, but this mentality hasn’t been limited to religion. Religion and science have often been just justification regimes. The first premise has been necessity that exclusively binds others.

^ Al_Kafir’s words

It’s very simple: to create (and earn) revenue from this supposed “spam”, the poor victims need to voluntarily consume said content (“spam”).
What else is there to discuss?

And by the way, one nice thing about this is that people who are “less well off” can honestly earn money as both providers of compute/network/storage services for, and as watchers of, said “spam” without actually buying anything (that is, at the expense of “spammers”). What’s not to like?

Since we all want to help our fellow man, I think we should encourage spammers to move to the SAFE network, even though I doubt they’d do that because it will be much more expensive than email spam. Which, after all, is a good thing.