I think it is safe to say (pardon the pun) that we all unanimously agree in the network paying farmers and most of us agree in the network paying app developers.
It is also safe to say as @happybeing has said several times that most of us are not against the idea of PtP, some of us are 100% for it and some of us are against it.
It is also good to note, that many of us, myself included do not wish to further delay the release of MaidSafe by further development and one would assume that implementing a PtP system, developing it, managing and administered it by MaidSafe would create further work. Correct me if my thinking is wrong.
My suggestion is a win/win and keeps all stake holders happy without expending more effort.
I have suggested this in both of the current threads but I would like to draw some direct attention to the idea because I honestly think it can work well and there is almost no MaidSafe resource that needs to be used up for implementation.
Lets define a few things:
Apps I believe we can define clearly as websites, tools, games etc.
Content creators otherwise known as āproducersā in this theme we can define as musicians, writers, animators, video producers etc.
With these definitions clear we can see that some producers will also be app developers and some app developers will also be producers.
And that of course means that not all app developers will be producers and not all producers will be app developers.
These are the people we are discussing. And there are many of them.
If we look at the current Internet we know that some of the biggest sites and apps are essentially user-generated content sites. Meaning the site and or app requires producers to produce, upload and share content otherwise that app or site is rendered completely useless. It is a partnership between the app or site developer and the users AKA āproducersā. Examples of these sites and apps are:
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Blogger, Wordpress etc so on and so forth.
If no one ever uploaded video to YouTube, it would cease to exist in itās current form, if no one ever tweeted a tweet, Twitter would cease to exist in itās current form. I think we can all agree on this.
Most people would say these sites are successful. Lets look at how some of these sites incentivize their users to upload and share content.
There are in a very general sense three ways these sites and others do this and some of them use methods 1 & 2 but very rarely do they use all three and for the discussion Iāll only mention the third but we wont discuss it, as it is not relevant.
- Solve a problem and add value to someoneās life. [They all kind of do this]
- Revenue sharing. [Not all of them do this]
- Pay for content directly e.g. News sites who hire journalists [some of them do this, itās not our concern, this is up to app and site developers as part of their business strategy]
Not all sites do method 1 & 2 and the difference used to be much clearer.
A problem solving value adding site example that does not use the Revenue sharing model would be Twitter. Twitter allows itās users to easily communicate and build large followings.
A revenue sharing example which also ads value would be Googleās Adsense program which is undoubtedly the worlds largest revenue sharing model. Youtube uses it, Blogger uses it and many other independent sites and apps use it.
The difference used to be that sites which used revenue sharing models had a problem of attracting large volumes of user-generated content from its producers because it was usually (not in all cases) more labour intensive. Examples of this would be making a video or writing a blog.
Problem solving and value adding sites did not really have this problem because the labour was not intensive at all. Take a look at how quickly someone can tweet a tweet or post a status update on Facebook as opposed to filming high quality videoās, editing and uploading on a regular basis.
Nevertheless ALL of the sites that have previously not offered revenue sharing are now considering revenue sharing models and some are even secretly using this method to test the waters. Some links for your reference:
Iād like to highlight the value that user-generated content creates in a partnership model with an app/site devloper and I think it should be obvious.
Based on the above models we already know work well we should indeed attract user-generated content to our network but we should not interfere in how this is done and instead leave it up to the app/site developer.
So, how do we achieve this and attract large volumes of high quality user-generated content to our network without interfering too greatly in the app/site developers business model and not interrupting the current network development or sucking itās resources?
I propose a simple update to the API/License.
This way MaidSafe can set the stage for how app/site developers act on the network as well as make recommendations.
We know revenue sharing works well for labour intense sites and we know tipping works well on non labour intense sites such as Reddit.
So therefore a recommendation might be that a labour intensive user-generated site consider a safecoin revenue sharing model and that a non labour intensive user generated site consider a safecoin tipping platform and or a revenue sharing model.
Please provide feedback, lets discuss.
