Ok. That’s fair.
Well, it’s not like it was an original idea to criticize farming in this way:
Were there several solutions that chipped away at these problems? Yes. Didn’t most of those solutions involve mass adoption and an abundance of PUTs? Yes. So the question we need to solve is “what compels an abundance of PUTs?”
I understand the stance that PtP encourages PUTs with the promise of the potential that content will become popular - and it is not altogether untrue. However, let’s look at the other systems that implement this and how they allow for an abundance of PUTs.
How are rewards earned in the respective systems? Farming rewards are earned by the disk space and bandwidth consumed by farmers. App rewards are based on the initial development and maintenance of the apps. Contrarily, isn’t PtP based only on the initial work to create the content?
Well, what’s different about PtP? Farming and development both require ongoing work/cost. PtP does not. So isn’t passive income only present in PtP?
Why is passive income different? Well, farming and development require reinvesting the Coins rewarded to continue to receive rewards. PtP does not require such a flow of currency. Once the content is produced, the producer requires no further expenditures of the Coin to continue the passive income. Isn’t this different to farming and development which require further expenses to maintain that stream of income?
But why would the Network care about passive income? It’s true that the farmer’s cost for bandwidth, or the developer’s cost of development resources (hardware, bandwidth, time, etc) are not all directly PUTs. However, they both require that the Coins they received be circulated (sold/traded) to fund their enterprise to ensure ongoing income. And isn’t Coin the “oil of the Network”, which is only effective if circulated?
But don’t popular content creators need to keep creating content too? Take Satoshi’s Bitcoin Whitepaper. As per your definition of popular content, I would say that it is popular. In a Network environment, wouldn’t that paper still be producing income today even though his content creation ceased long ago?
Ok, but how do their operating costs effect PUT abundance? Farmer’s income goes to providing space and infrastructure for PUTs. App development rewards go towards maintenance that enables the ability to PUT. These are directly related to the consumers’ ability to PUT data onto the Network. Alternatively, content only provides a reason to PUT additional data onto the Network by consumers, and is not necessary for new PUTs. So isn’t it that the two systems with operating costs influence the amount of PUTs moreso than the system that doesn’t?
So what factors necessarily lead to more PUTs? Two things. First of all, circulating Coins. This is necessarily present in farming and development, but not in content production. Secondly, providing the consumers with an ability to PUT in the first place. Content provides a reason to PUT, but not the base ability to PUT. Isn’t it true that an ability to act must be present before the reason of the action can be considered?
How does this fit into a free market? In a free market, all entities must be concerned about their own welfare - no one should act contrary to their own benefit. If farming and development can guarantee the advancement of the Network’s welfare, then the Network should take steps to encourage this behavior. However, if content creation cannot guarantee the advancement of the Network’s welfare, then it has no reason to encourage this behavior. So aren’t farming and development directly related to the economic advancement of the Network?
Without PtP doesn’t it seem like the Network dissuades people from PUTting at all? From a purely economic point of view that we just covered, yes. However, the motivation to create content is outside of the scope of the Network, whereas motivation to farm and develop are contained only inside of the Network. So isn’t the ability to PUT data onto the Network important to the Network, while the reason for the data PUT on the Network is not?
Yes. Therefore the motivation that the Network would give to content creators with PtP is not important from the Network’s point of view.
P.S. This ended up being way longer than I thought it was going to be initially. But it does outline almost the entirety of my point of view on PtP and of the PUT Incentive Model (as it relates to the rationale of why developers should be rewarded by the Network).
P.P.S. There’s no need to quote my rhetorical questions.