Proposal: Pay per "Like"

Agreed and answered here…

One drawback of this solution is when SC becomes more valuable (i.e.
worth more $$$). Then 1 click liking becomes expensive. Divisibility
would be required as well as a way to decrease how much SC it costs to
submit a LIKE.

SAFE Network LIKES are literally valuable, therefore more meaningful than FREE likes. It is a trade off.

I thought of making a LIKE cost 1GB (for example) which is $0.06 equivalent. But then we need SAFE GB, and not everyone understands/supports SAFE GB. The LIKE reward would also have to change to 0.5 SAFE GB as well.


I really ‘like’ the idea. Also I would SAFE LIKE this thread if i could. The proposal is user friendly way of sending micro payments across the network.

I am voting for this also, rewards quality and not quantity and say thanks that is is great.

There may be if it can be used to open a paywall.


Each debate related to PtP (APPS & Content) makes me want this as a “core” feature.

Assuming public Content will be access from many different APPS (especially aggregators)… it makes sense to have the GET request also pull the walletmark address. I changed the name to avoid confusion with the original term watermark.

Regardless of the APP that pulled the data chunk(s), there will always be a “LIKE” button, and a “TIP” button. Here’s how I see it working.

Consumers pay for their Opinion using (LIKES)
The LIKE feature is mainly for reputation scoring, but also used a secondary farming reward from the SAFE Network… and provides a hidden benefit.

If (unowned) Safecoin becomes scarce, this feature will add more to the farming pool. If (unowned) Safecoin is very abundant, this feature will payout more to producers, supported by human feedback.

Consumers support Producers using (TIPS)
The TIP feature is the main source of income for the producer. After consuming content, the consumer may TIP the producer, regardless of what APP they use to access the content. Even if I found a great song/video from an aggregator APP, my client already pulled the walletmark address so I can TIP the producer directly.

I am aware of the argument to let producers set their price. And I have no intention of controlling anyone. They can easily put up a paywall or use private key access for: subscriptions, on demand payment, etc.

This is just my personal preference, and not reflective of the masses. I enjoy browsing/downloading for FREE, and always wished there was a LIKE & TIP button by default. It is very likely I will use different APPS, but I see them as becoming the “middleman” in this equation, which is opposite of what we are trying to accomplish?


What effect would “Likes” have on content? Would it just be another bit of metadata that applications can optionally choose to display or use for content curation?

Personally, I’m leaning towards just putting “walletmarking” in the core, then letting applications just do whatever they want with that. I anticipate that most applications would include as part of their UI a way to send money to the address listed in the walletmark.

Or maybe we could combine the two approaches? Allow users to publicly (or optionally, anonymously) make donations to a specific piece of content, and then display the amount of money donated as a sort of “like” count. Then again though, you could probably artificially inflate that number by repeatedly donating to yourself through sockpuppet accounts…


That would seem to be the minimum. Then other schemes baked on top if there is enough support for them once details have been carefully designed. The timing is those would also be up for debate, and the use of trial period and review, and voting in taking them out, changes etc.


All of the above.

Agreed. We can’t stop APPS from doing what they want anyway. At least, the “useful” service is available by default (a core feature).

The APP Builder may choose to use, or not. The APP may even include more buttons, [LIKE] [TIP]…

[BUY] [Subscribe] [Share]

1 Like

Love it, love everything about it.



The more control for the end user the better. This keeps power dispersed and keeps open access.


I may be wrong, but I believe that´s some old school thinking. Your proposal kinda makes sense, but it is quite complicated, plus, it has the side effect that the money that I pay gets lost on the way to its receiver to a very high degree.

What happens if likes and dislikes are free? Yes, there will be spamming. But what if that won´t matter in the future, because the mere quantity is not relevant anymore, but the value (where value is determined by the reputation of the correspondent account)? I tend to think that people adopt to the fact that in digital environments identities have a very different value and react to it (care less for numbers, care more for the network).

I don´t think that voting should be carried out on the core network and I don´t see how it should be carried out functionally. How is i.e. the ammount of Safecoin determined needed for a like? 1 Safecoin could well be worth 1000$ one day in the future while now it´s only pennies. Since the system inherently doesn´t know anything about its value a proper value cannot be determined algorithmicly.

Instead you can do everything on a platform and have people paying for their likes. I don´t see why it should be done overly complicated.

1 Like

Hmm I really like the walletmark idea. +1

How do we prevent people from spamming likes?

1 Like

How bout not caring about the number, but instead about the people behind?

Paying for Likes taints them. Likes are suppose to be genuine without any monetary attachment. As a pure quantitative example, I don’t give to charity expecting some money back. If I did, the value of the gift is reduced by the amount received. And how does one quantify Likes? Is liking a pet owner’s dog’s new haircut more valuable than liking a new movie that a producer took years to make?

Do we get paid for voting for our representatives? Absolutely not. That would fall into the category of bribery; paying for votes.

And would there be a market for Likes? Can I sell my Like to the highest bidder? Can I buy them for my new web promotion?


I think this would require a solution to the Proof of Unique Human Problem, which has been discussed extensively on the forum. The short answer is that whoever comes up with a solution to this should win the Nobel Prize.


It’s not payment for likes, but payment by likes. When you “like” something you pay the uploader a little SafeCoin. Not the other way around.


I think that Paying for Likes means that the person whose content is liked gets paid.

And all we have to to prevent selling likes is make liking content cost something for the user. Then, the user is an idiot unless they get paid more than they give. And if you set it so that the network takes a little surcharge, then it will be unprofitable to pay for Likes.


Not at all, that´s again ‘old’ thinking imho. In digital environments unique identities don´t matter because they don´t exist. What matters is unique contribution. Identifying real objects (real identities) is hope- and senseless. In digital environments webs of trust and relations develop that are unique and have a value comparable to material entities. The difference is: you as a user cannot let a system determine what is valuable and what´s not - you have to make the judgement on your own.

For instance: Currently a video on Youtube displays valuation based on Youtube´s method of identification (being a member or no member). It´s very easy to game that system and in fact it is done in many many cases. Buying views and thumbsups is cheap on a scale where it doesn´t affect rewards and where you use it mainly to suggest that you have a popular video. So, why would that number mean anything to you? It´s highly intransparent and therefore worthless - in fact, it´s only worthy if you trust on the reliability of Youtube. It´s centralistic thinking.

Contrary, you can also display only the likes/dislikes that people gave who you judged to be reliable (friends). You could even have different categories of reliabilities - but in the end it would be you who defines the level of trust depending on your experience of interaction.

It´s obvious that this doesn´t serve as a model to pay out globally - i am also not a proponent of that idea. I believe that on network level only those payments should be handled that are needed to sustain the system. Content IS relevant and SHOULD BE rewarded, but it´s not part of what needs to be done to sustain the network.

1 Like

Sorry, I thought you were responding to the OP. What kind of payment system are you referring to or would this be more of a social status thing? That you know that the people you like, like you back?

Well I was, but that´s more to demonstrate why I don´t think that it is senseful to reward anything but farming at network level as I have also argued above.