Today we are starting an experiment.
What we are testing may not work. However, if it has a chance of working we want to know, and if it doesn't work, we want to know why.
Starting today we are testing a bitcoin-based donation model to fund Hubski. We are not using real bitcoin or real donations. However, we are asking that to the best of your ability, consider than the donations are real, and act appropriately.
Here's how this donation model works:
When you donate to Hubski, these funds are converted into bitcoin, and deposited in your 'donation bank'. When you share a post or circle-dots-to-the-clockwise (bloop, uphub, etc.) a comment, some bitcoin are transferred out of your donation bank. These bitcoin may be split between Hubski and the author of the post of comment. You determine the amount of bitcoin transferred with each share, and the ratio of the split between Hubski and the author. If this were not an experiment, you could withdraw your balance at any time.
You can find the balance of your test donation bank in your profile. There is also a link there to your donation settings. You can use your donation settings to control how much (imaginary) bitcoin is transferred with each share, and the ratio of the split between Hubski and the author.
We are well aware that there are reasons why this idea could be considered good, and reasons why it could be considered to be terrible. We have discussed many of these reasons. However, as I have previously written, the current model for funding a social aggregator is flawed. We want to make more informed decisions regarding our future funding model, and this experiment is designed to help us do that.
For this experiment, we use the unit 'bit', which equals 1/1000000 bitcoin. Currently, 3500 bits has a value of about $1 USD.
As stated above, this is just an experiment, and these bits are not real. Do your best to pretend that they are, but understand that they will be erased after the experiment is complete. We expect to run the experiment for about 2 weeks.
Feel free to share feedback and your predictions below. I am sure we will have plenty to discuss when the experiment is complete. Thanks in advance for your participation!
We are running the experiment with 20 test donors, each starting with 35000 bits. We have selected 12 people to be donors. If you want to be one of the remaining 8 test donors, let me know below.
Update: We now have our 20 initial donors. 700000 imaginary bits are now floating about. Let's see how they move. Thanks!
I'm amused that y'all's big idea for rescuing Hubski from the funding miasma of social networks is Micropayments - the Great White Hope of People Who Don't Understand Economics. I'm further amused that you decided to hide the mechanics under a layer of abstraction by leveraging the most volatile trading token you could find. Finally, the fact that you've given it to 20 users, none of whom have any real idea what's going on or why, as a measure of a site-wide result kinda tickles me pink. This is a bad idea. You're adding friction to the one aspect of the site you want to be frictionless (Hubski: the discouraging web). For the people whom you have incentivized to Share The Love (STL), you've given no guidance as to expected measures, what the economics actually mean for the site or what everyone else is doing. For the people whom are just watching the experiment you're simply letting them know that you added a weird useless marker to 20 Secret Shoppers. I suspect the end result will be "mk learns why micropayments are a bad idea" which, if this is what it takes, is entirely worth the trouble. HOWEVER if this means that you're going to play games with profit models, I'm all for it... assuming we can try some different games. I have a few ideas. Shall I list them elsewhere, since this discussion is already unwieldy? EDIT two hours after writing this, and with very little else in my feed at the moment, I've determined that I've donated 250 bits and earned 17.3 bits. In other words, this comment has earned me about half a cent in play money. Which, as boldboldness points out, is fucking insulting. Chapter 4.
Micropayments aren't an inherently bad idea. They work for funding services, which is the purpose they were originally intended for. AWS's pricing is pretty much micropayments, though they only bill at certain thresholds to avoid the problem with transaction costs. They don't work well for funding content, and even if they did I don't think Hubski is large enough, but there are circumstances where they work.
There's a big difference between B2B "micropayments" where you're buying into a plan that you expect to cost a stone crapton of money and capital-M Micropayments where you, the end user, are meting out currency a fraction of a cent at a time. On the one hand, you know you're in for several thousand "micropayments" that will comprise a real-money bill. On the other hand, the end user is contemplating spending $.0015 sending an email and trying to decide if it's worth spending $.0030 more to cc two people. The former works. The latter doesn't.
I think the truth of the matter is that users are never going to get a lot when the site is just getting by itself, which looks like to be the lot of the social aggregator. We should probably decide if giving back to the users is meaningful in a monetary sense at all, or if we should just put all revenue towards the site, and hopefully return the value in another way.
Should the users get a lot? I'm certainly not here because I think it'll make me rich, I'm here because I think this is a valuable community whose insights and opinions matter to me. Our previous discussion about b-corps segues nicely with rob's insistence on open-sourcing. That Pando article about Digg v. Reddit also points out that Craigslist still exists because they never prioritized monetization. I think you guys are in an entirely different paradigm than Reddit in that you aren't interested in a sale and you aren't interested in getting a bunch of TED talks out of this - you want to build a lasting, worthwhile community that isn't a financial drain on you. That gives you a lot more leeway. I'm 100% sure Hubski can be operated at a profit such that it will provide for the livelihoods of those who devote their time to running it. Part of the reason is that I think it's a system with a great deal of extensibility and scalability; the other part is that because of how you've arranged it you just don't need a lot of staff. I'm equally 100% sure that Hubski will never be bought out for millions of dollars. If you're cool with that, the future is bright.
Of interest, Hubski is sitting at 45000 bits atm. However, there was one whale involved. What I am cool with is making something that lasts that wouldn't have otherwise existed. I'd really like to be able to pay the people that work on it too. I didn't expect that user revenue would ever be much more than the occasional sandwich, but that's because there just isn't that much to go around. It was intended as a gesture, and the ability to involve the users in an interesting way that stays alive. I don't want to beg like Jimmy Wales. It's funny, gaming Hubski for bits is just a terrible value proposition. I am also a fan of selective sharing pressure. IMO it is a important factor in the health of the site.
As a non-regular baby user, this frightens me! I worry that, if this were real, people would take earning bitcoin from posts far too seriously. The system also seems a little complex, especially as Hubski already takes a little while to get down pat. It's a neat idea, though. Perhaps, if this did become real, you would only get an "account" after you've filled your wheel once? Though users should be free to just hit a "donate" button at any time.
I agree. That is the biggest downside that we predict. The 'hubwheel first' idea is an interesting one. We are going to have plenty to discuss when this is over, I am sure.I worry that, if this were real, people would take earning bitcoin from posts far too seriously.
This occurred to me, too, but I'm reminded of this xkcd comic. While it can definitely be corrupted, what if all this does is produce posters obsessed with sharing high quality content? I find this experiment fascinating and am optimistic.
I'm worried about this cheapening the content, more than anything. I love hubski the way it is, but I'm afraid that, as it gets bigger, people will start posting easily digestible content that doesn't promote thoughtfulness...which becomes a slippery slope when you add in monetary rewards. I don't want Hubski to become Reddit, and we know how that karma system has promoted frequent low-quality posts for the sake of, "Karma-Whoring." I'm afraid that giving money to users for posting something popular could lead us down that same path.
This is very early in the testing process, but already I find I'm a bit more stingy with my boops and shares knowing I have a finite amount of funds to give out. If I know I'm giving away my hard earned money with every share, I want to make sure it's spent on quality content. I suppose a problem would arise if a majority of users felt their money is better spent on content featuring memes and tired jokes instead of articles on current politics and technology, for example. Thankfully those type of users are sparse on Hubski.
I think another aspect is that I don't really know how much each of these bits is worth. Like, I've been told, but that has no real meaning since I got them for free. At first I was just giving out 4 bits per boop (awesome sentence), but then my bit count went up by a ton after only a few boops. I felt that social pressure to adjust my valuation of bits and give out more per boop. Once it's tied to a dollar value, I wonder how I'll actually react. I'm trying to pretend, but it's hard since it's just not my money.
I'm doing a 100 bits per boop (bpb?) right now. I figure that should allow me to run through the 35000 bits I have in the two weeks we have. Or at least a large portion of them. The 35000 bits corresponds to about 10 real dollars. I could see myself investing 10 bucks in Hubski every two weeks.
Ooh, that makes me think of something that could (potentially) make this work, in that even if people put money in, there's a hard limit to how much you can put in per month, for example. That way people will remain somewhat stingy with who they award because they can only do it so much in a month, and it could help prevent the value of it from cheapening and people wouldn't have much reason to make pandering posts. Still wouldn't solve all issues concerning that, though, I realize after writing this out.
It's certainly possible. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but my hope is the expense to the user up-hubbing results in some restraint. Whether it's credit I've received or paid for, I'll think twice about sharing a cute picture of a cat or up-hubbing a witty but low effort comment. In a world with no down votes, having a small expense to sharing a link hopefully steers users toward posts they find valuable rather than merely amusing.
I thought about this too but couldn't get past the "pay to win" model. If, for example, hubski gets super popular, what's to stop an ad agency from buying 1,000,000 and flooding the site? Credits are cheap and $5000 is a drop in the bucket of a major ad campaign.
What's stopping them from creating a bunch of accounts and doing that now? These bits are buying you anything. We're not saying you can't share if you don't have money. Interactions are remaining the same but now your vote has a bit more value.
Oh, I was replying specifically to the idea that submissions should cost some nominal amount of bits.
Honestly, it could work really well, I'm merely trying to express my fears. I hope that the system goes exactly how mk and friends have planned, I'm just a bit too cynical. If this system went live, I would certainly buy in for a small amount just to feed the system and support hubski.
This seems the most likely downfall of this approach. Still, it seems odd that the low quality content would have the advantage when there is a greater cost associated with it proliferating it. No doubt, there may be a stronger incentive to produce it now. If these factors are at play, I wonder how they will balance out. That said, the motivation to experiment like this is because we want to create something that can scale and maintain its integrity and purpose. Other funding models aren't well-aligned. IMO it's an open question if we can find a better one, but this will likely help us in the search.
Of course! Which is why I'm glad we're doing this experiment in the first place--I want to see how this plays out. I don't think hubski has reached the critical mass of popularity where the content starts declining in popularity, and this system may work very well with how the community currently exists. I'm a little excited to see what direction this gets taken--it could be awful, or it could be really cool!
I'm going to ramble this out: With the current mechanism the worst thing that can happen is nothing, the best thing that can happen is you get bits. This makes me think I could pander. Muting offers a nice counterbalance as I can flood feeds with shit posts before I'm silenced on a majority of the site, but as the community grows and the common denominator lowers, that might change. But that's a potential future, so we'll set that aside. This will get us, hopefully, a nice boost in content but I wonder what will happen to the level of shares. With actual currency tied to the action, I myself feel more gollum-y, clutching my bits to my chest in search of things that I value, making me want to be less cavalier with my shares. Probably a good thing. I'm going to put my imaginary bits towards an increase in posts with a decrease in shares. Though this does open the door for some interesting "markets". What if it cost bits to post? What if it cost bits to add community tags? What if the current community tag wasn't the one with the most users, but with the most bits? What if badges were automatically worth 100x's boops were worth? You're teetering on the edge of making a free market of community content and the gulf below is vast and awesome. EDIT: oh man, now my mind is going crazy with this. You could make entire stock markets for content. You could tie the popularity of a tag to the number of bits it costs to post to that tag, or to vote in that tag. You could allow authors to set bit bars on their content, forcing people to pay to play. You could create a "karmadecay" that applies a modifier to every bit of content, making reposts progressively more expensive. An actual "karma market" where currency has variable values is such a powerful concept. I'm nerding out right now.
Another idea on this: I could see bits congregating at greedy points - folks who post a lot, get booped a lot, but have their donations set to zero. In time this would create bit pools and stagnate the economy. It's not a pressing concern as the community is still small, but I wonder what effects an expiration date on bits would have.
There was some musing a while back about what a Hubski marketplace might look like. Half baked idea, but it sparked some decent conversation.
More ideas: This one falls under granular control, so I don't think it has merit for hubski in its current form but I think there's something in it. I've been doing writing prompts. If I wanted to hold a week long contest where solid entries get 500 bits, I'd have to adjust my bit rate every time I went back to the thread (because that's just too much to give to everyone). Some way to limit my donations to tags, or posts on my own threads. Maybe even a currency separate from boops. Imagine a golden hubwheel appears only when you have bits. you can vote regularly or with bits, your choice.
That's one of my concerns, as well. I like the idea of hiding the bit donation stuff until you've filled a wheel, i.e. gradually introducing complexity. I wonder if a paragraph or two explaining how it works on the donation settings page would help, or just make it worse.The system also seems a little complex
Gradually making Hubski complex could be just as bad as introducing this right off the bat. A lot of people come and go, aren't sold at first, or are disillusioned before really getting into Hubski. I know I've left at least once thinking I wouldn't visit again. If we keep making this minimalist aggregator more and more complicated, it loses any edge or value it currently has– it gets harder for the new user to reach the community that makes Hubski great.
I agree that we need to take away as much as we add. At least it should feel like it from a user's perspective. The cognitive load is just a bit higher than it ought to be IMO. That's part of the reason why we removed auto-personal tags, the gains didn't seem worth the added complexity. That said, a bit of an intimidation factor isn't always a bad thing. It's a balancing act.
I just gave you 15 bits. It's like a whole. .004 cents! I was similarly worried about this, but the fact that you get bits by posting and sharing and the amount of money we are talking about is so small and so passive, I don't know. I don't see it being a worthwhile money making venture for individuals at this point. Furthermore, Hubski users do a good job of sharing content that encourages discussion, even if it isn't something they don't strictly agree with. I really hope this model encourages people to be more thoughtful, post and comment more, and engage with each other more. It would never work on reddit because it would increase the amount of low-fi content and reposts that float around and it would be hypothetically possible to game the system and actually make a relatively substantial amount of money. People would game it to game it. Because our community is much smaller and much more focused on longer form content and high quality discussions, I don't think we are going to go down that path right now.) How many bits do you have now?
31.5 bits! Kind of feels like an arbitrary number for me right now. Like Fahrenheit temperature. What does it all mean?! I think the "right now" is a huge part of this whole thing. The community is good, the focus is discussion, and it isn't particularly easy to game Hubski (if at all) without a cultural shift. In the long term though, how will this translate? Will we be able to recognize if a pivot is in order?
I hope so. Hubski has birthed and killed features like there is no tomorrow. Personal tags. Editors. The possibility of revamping community tags again due to assholes using it to anonymously attack. We don't really pivot over here—we just sort of flow based on what is necessary at any given time. This is one of the reasons we are doing this with fake bits - to see what happens. To see if people start to see their behavior changing and whether or not that is a positive or a negative for the larger community. FYI, I heard about the idea for the first time last night. About a million thoughts ran through my head, "what if it does..." and "what if people start...". I was looking for areas for it to fail. Luckily, mk already had it ready to go and so we said fuck it. Let's go. Let's get answers. Let's see what happens. If this works - truly works - it'll be so fucking awesome. If it encourages people to be awesome and gives everyone the ability to donate to Hubski while participating in Hubski, that is amazing. Furthermore, the utter passivity of it is wonderful. Donation micro-transactions like Gratipay and other bitcoin tipping services force users to take an action in order to contribute to things they find valuable. That's where those things fail. You don't have to be okay to make money, you have to game the system, A/B test, include calls to action, to get people to take the action you want them to take. Passivity it key to micro transactions. My absolute favorite thing about this is you don't have have money to contribute to Hubski. By providing value to the users of Hubski - posts that are insightful, comments that are thoughtful, you gain bits. By passing those along to other people who do similar things and giving a portion to Hubski, you have contributed to our costs and make Hubski a better place. A lot of my original questions about this mechanism revolved around "cashing out" because, the bits are bitcoin and your bits could be turned into real money for you, the Hubski user. As I think about it more, I don't foresee the current subset of users cashing out though. I think people will throw in $5 or $10 or whatever they have, and it'll trickle down throughout the community and eventually end up in Hubski's pocket. But it's all passive and before it goes to pay for our servers, it goes to make Hubski a better place. It also means that you don't have to donate anything but time and posts and comments and, in the end, that holds the same weight as someone who just bought $5 in bits. I know my thoughts are all over the place. In the end, I'm just really excited.Will we be able to recognize if a pivot is in order?
I guess that won't matter anyway. Folks that are into those sort of exchanges will fade into the background all on their own. By being solely open to likeminded viewpoints is likely just going to insulate them from the rest of a vibrant community experience won't it?
My biggest fear is that this changes behavior.l in a way that panders to receiving bits. For example : "please circledot this so I can buy lunch." Still, I'm excited to see how this plays out. I'll admit, it's pretty fun. I like that only you can see how many bits you have.
As someone who just discovered how great youtube can be for tutorials, tips, and reviews, seeing those requests really irk me. It's like digital pan handling. If I find your videos of a consistent value, I'll subscribe of my own free will. If I don't, I won't. It's really that simple.
I second psychoticmilkman, this seems very interesting and I'm eager to see how it goes, but I also wouldn't mind a simple donation mechanism wherein I can just hand over some money to help with costs.
This idea is utterly horrible. Reddit's Karma is completely useless, yet people rabidly try to collect it and often post utter crap in the process. Just look at people like /u/gallowboob. Now you want to not only introduce a point system, but monetize it? This has disaster written all over it.
Here's the thing though. As long as the money is imaginary, this is just a game for the people involved in the experiment. There is no real investment, no risk of emotional loss or regret. There is nothing to gain or lose. If you actually went live with this, the results could be drastically different. Even worse, it could work out great initially, but then completely fall apart as it upscales. By then, you'll be too far entrenched and dependent on the system to remove it. Money has a ruinous effect on almost everything it touches if that money does not come about virtuously and altruistically.
I really don't want you to take this personally, because I respect you and value this website, apparently more than i thought because the very concept of this system fills me with dread. It feels like you're saying "Hey. We're looking at selling out here and we want you to take part in the whole sellout process." That's a painful thing for me to say but that's how I honestly feel. I don't even want to think about how this could attract all of those lame pakispammers we see. They'd probably try to flood this place in hopes of being able to cash out twice and they're bad enough already. You guys originally talked about turning to your users for patronage, and I've even see people step forward asking for a way to donate. What ever happened to that? I know I personally would be willing to give you guys every last cent I give to NPR each year and probably even more on top of it and not ask for or expect a single thing in return. I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Don't worry. I don't take it personally in the least, and I appreciate you sharing the concern. I think we have a pretty good track record when it comes to pursuing our goal. But, we are also ok with trying crazy shit along the way. Let's see how things look after this plays out.
mk's ego is not made of glass. By posting this he chooses to welcome criticism of all types, positive and negative, emotional, intellectual, informed, ignorant, and downright batshit insane. He asked for our genuine thoughts, I offered mine. They are not a criticism of him or this website, but only of his idea. If you read my third comment on this chain, the very first line to it is . . . To which mk responds . . . So no. I am not trying to be rude. I am however, deeply, deeply concerned about this idea. Also, see my second comment on this comment chain. Even if the experiment itself goes well, the actual concept in practice itself has the potential to go horribly wrong.I really don't want you to take this personally, because I respect you and value this website, apparently more than i thought because the very concept of this system fills me with dread.
Don't worry. I don't take it personally in the least, and I appreciate you sharing the concern.
Of course, no harm no foul. It's just tough for people to gauge tone in comments. I do my best to give the benefit of the doubt. Often I drop an 'IMO' when I am firing off an idea so that it's clear I'm trying to add rather than argue. Not saying you should. But I found it saves me time and energy clarifying.
In my defense, I usually do. However, over the weekend I was without a computer so I was posting from my phone. As a result, I kept my posts short and succinct. I think I sacrificed some humanity in my comments as a result. I'll try my best to rectify that down the road.
One of the main points of Dan Ariley's book Predictably Irrational was that the chasm between paid and non-paid is so far greater than people usually expect. Even when the transaction is merely pennies, the change in the attitude of a person can be immense. I mean, people have no qualms buying a $600 smartphone, but many of these people would prefer to use a broken ad-filled free app than shell out the whole 99 cents for the paid app. It turns regular joyful activities into work for many people, even if you don't need the income or even don't really care. Basically, even fractions of a cent could cause users to behave significantly different and change the tone of the website. I wouldn't want to see any unintended consequences from such a change.
Micropayments: for people who don't remember the '90s
That's an interesting point. Part of the rationale for letting users decide how much to donate, and how to divide it is to discover where people drift to over time. I didn't start with any bits, but speaking for myself, I increased my donation based upon an increase in what was available to me. I have a sense that relative values are going to play a role.
Some vocabulary nominations: * Boopconomy, the movements and influence of the mighty Boop. * Boopwhoring, what it says on the packet. * Booppuppetting, Boopwhoring with bonus sockpuppetry. * Boopnostic, the giving of no fucks about Boops. * Noops, non-Boop shares. * Nooppeasantry, it will eventually be known which users give shares that are Noops, lets face it. * Boopocracy, if the system evolves to be plutocratic and Boops have more influence than Noops (eg worth 2 dots vs 1). * Boopheists, where the bitcoin-hungry criminal masses steal all our Boops from Hubski. Anyone got any others?
Someone please please please scrape this data and do some awesome data visualization out of it. JakobVirgil?
Shoot. I totally forgot we have those pages private. Dang. I really really want to see graphs.
I can scrape data and pump out tables and shitty graphs, they just won't be pretty. I was planning on tracking the number of submissions and comments before and after the start of this anyway.
Seems interesting, but I still worry that tying money to boopskis will incentivize easily-consumed posts. Do you have a system in place to help deter that?
Ideas: It could be tied to word count. So it's n bits per word, or per ten words, or something. Though that obviously does the reverse: incentivising rambling posts. It could be tied to the number of other shares. So, if you're the only one who shares a comment, it gets n bits from you. If it has 7 dots already, it gets n·7 bits from you. I'm not sure if that incentivises valuable posts, or disincentivises sharing already-popular posts. It could also do the opposite, to disincentivise using the system to make money: the more shares your post gets, the fewer bits per share.tying money to boopskis will incentivize easily-consumed posts
I'm looking forward to carving a little Hubski slice out of my monthly budget like I do my charities. I think this is a really smart way to support the site. Shows how unique and always evolving Hubski is. I hope everything goes swimmingly.
I got so excited I forgot I have zero idea how to bitcoin. Would it be possible for someone to teach old farts like myself?
No need to know how. Just go to your profile, follow the 'donation settings' link on the lower right, and decide if your shares give bits, and how they are divided. Even if we do do this, all the bitcoin jazz will be behind the scenes. We will take care of that.
See, this is how you start blockchaining the future. The average user doesn't give a damn about how a thing works, as long as it works. I'm super supportive of cryptocurrency expansion, but a lot of the proponents of the tech expect too much emotional and intellectual investment of the end user.all the bitcoin jazz will be behind the scenes.
Thanks, Reef3. It's pretty clear that the money aspect is not going to survive beyond the experiment. When I created Hubski, there was an on site currency at work. Every day you would get a bit of karma, which you could spend voting up other people's content. When your karma was 0, you couldn't vote anymore until you got more. When people voted up your content, you got some more to spend. Once we implemented sharing, we found that the reticence to share fluff was enough that we didn't need to have any sort of scarcity at work. Money is corrupting. At the same time, there has been talk of value-sharing as in a co-op or something similar. Social aggregators are valuable because of the content that users create, but that content costs increasingly more money to host. At some point, you need to pay for these costs, and yet not ruin the experience for users. It's not enough to raise some money. Revenue needs to cover the costs, and they both need to scale. We need to be creative and experiment, since existing revenue models seem to either make the site closed and eternally small, or growing and doomed. If it comes down to it, I'll choose the former. But I am not willing to rule out another possible future yet, and this kind of experimenting helps that search.
I appreciate the thought that has gone into the reasoning, it just seems complicated and arbitray. I expect that much like the site, whatever does get implemented will go through experimentation. That's good! I also recognize it is important that Hubski finds a way to support itself. Anyway, the result of this experiment will be interesting nonetheless. I trust the team will find something that works.
Two questions: One, if this is implemented in truth after the experiment, does it mean that when I initially donate to hubski, the site actually gets nothing? It all goes to my little account to be doled out over time? This raises some issues, which I will bring up at a later date if the experiment is a success. Two, am I supposed to do exactly what I would do with this money were it real? Because that would be: set donation to hubski to 100 percent, set donation amount per share to the amount of money I have, donate. In other words, I might play around with the system for a little while, but ultimately I would use it as a mechanism to ... give money to hubski. As far as I can tell it does you guys' server costs little good to have a bunch of "bitcoins" floating around from account to account without ever funneling to your bills. (Assuming everyone sets 'percentage donated to hubski' <100.) Basically it's like a tax on donating? If I donate via this mechanism and don't set to 100 percent, part of my donation just bounces from user to user until the end of time. Chalk me confused, but I hope everyone has fun with it.
When we open donations, you will be able to pay directly to Hubski without the circles you spoke about. Don't worry.
No, I'm not still in Curacao. I'm fighting with a custom PHP script to get URL rewrites so this lady can have her thousands of insane custom URLs with no pattern whatsoever without opening up a security hole from hell and having to manage her shit for her. Save me. I'd much rather be thinking about this. Rephrase and I'll get to it whenever I finish this. If I don't return, I've drown myself in a bucket of whiskey and I apologize in advance for leaving you hanging.
Okay, so, my main confusion -- Route 1: me, you and tng all donate $10 to hubski via bitcoin or paypal. hubski gets $30. Route 2 (the current thing): me, you and tng all choose to donate $10 by buying into this currency circulation game. hubski gets nothing immediately. Now assume we're the only three users on hubski, and we all have our "percentage donated to hubski (as opposed to donated to the commenter)" setting at less than 100 percent to hubski. Thus, some part of the $30 will never go to hubski, no matter how many times we comment. Right? Maybe I'm wrong, but if all of the above is true, this is essentially a pointless tax on donating. (Unless enough people's settings are on "100 percent $$ to hubski" ... in which case why not just donate normally.)
I know reddit apparently stole the badge feature from Hubski way back. I say we steal reddit's feature for the badge feature, and allow/ask/mandate people to donate $[however much you wanna make the badge cost] for this great content you're about to badge! When a new user earns their badge, they can gift it as they do and also "give back" to Hubski for the badge they earned. It's a vicious cycle of fat stacks powered by love.
I use Zen mode currently. Would this show up or would I have to switch back to regular mode? I am interested in trying this model.
It's imaginary money. And you've just volunteered as a donor! :) You now have 35000 imaginary bits! Check your profile page. In short, follow the 'donation settings' link, decide how much each of your shares donates, and how that is split between Hubski and the author of the content that you are sharing. For example:
This would mean that each time you share, you send 3 bits. 1.8 bits would go to Hubski, and 1.2 bits would go to the author. bits donated per share (0 to 3500): 3
percent of donation given to Hubski (0 to 100): 60
One downside of the bitcoin process is that those in the experiment might be less likely to show encouragement. One use I make of circledotting a comment is to show people that their comment has been seen and appreciated. I'll just have to stop that because -- it wasn't appreciated that much. Anyway, let's see what comes up in the discussions as the two weeks continue. Let the games begin!When you share a post or upvote a comment
Is there another word we can use besides "upvote"?? How about "When you share a post or [encourage][value][are pleased by] a comment . . . Even without the downvote possibility, the word "upvote" implies the existence of downvoting.These bitcoin may be split between Hubski and the author of the post of comment. You determine the amount of bitcoin transferred with each share, and the ratio of the split between Hubski and the author.
OK, I think I get it. The main outcome will be that individual posters who try to make thoughtful comments and worthwhile posts will be rewarded. Hubski, who we love and want to support will get some real imaginary money.
Yes, let's verbify "Circle Dots to the Clockwise" -- c'mon now, change the original post! Meanwhile: thoughtful posters will accumulate more bits. Note my comment above has already four cdttc's -- so if they were in the donation system, I would have more bits to give away to others. Cool. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, none of those cdttc's added to my bitcoinage. - EDIT just checked again: now I have 35010.4, up from 35000. Wow. Should I quit my dayjob? 2ND EDIT and 8 hours later: 35055.200000000004 I am so rich.
I agree. What about Circle Dotting or just Dotting?
"Circle dotting" reminds me of the rhyme from elementary school (to be spoken while drawing on someone's arm): "Circle, circle, dot, dot; now I've got my cootie shot!" Maybe if you fill up someone's hubwheel you're giving them cooties? :|
you think? i mean it's not official by any means. it's just something i saw and liked and it makes talking about hubski irl easier (to the like...1 person i talk to it about irl)
I'm 1000% on board for calling it booping a post.
i love it. i don't remember who came up with it, but that sure is what it feels like. it's gentle and less competitive than an upvote. boop!
Same! I had only spent 5000 bits this first week, so I've upped my bpb from 100 to 500 to 1000. If this model is actually implemented I think I'd cap my bpb at 500. Normally I wouldn't want to spend them so fast, but hey, why leave bits on the table right now?
Lower the amount of bits to match your voting preferences? Someone who only rarely votes could show the increased value of their vote by giving 100 bits/vote. Someone who votes on everything could give 5 bits.
Maybe I just don't know how these things work, but... is Patreon not an option? Or something similarly simple?
As far as I know, Patreon is like an indefinite Kickstarter for artists. A quick look takes me to this page: https://patreon.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204606125-How-do-you-calculate-fees- which says they take 5%, plus they mention other fees that might apply.
Insom explained this to me last night, it's a great idea.
I was looking this over and was curious to know if the plan for something like this more towards including everyone in this donation process? For example if for instance someone couldn't donate money, if they remained an active and thoughtful producer of content they would get the bits from others. They would then be able to contribute monetarily to the site and feel in some ways more connected. If that's the goal I think that is pretty interesting.
All my bits have been spent! I can't wait to see the results of the last two weeks! :)
So I discovered I used to have zero bits, and now I have 10 bits. Is there a way to find out who gave me the bits, like how you can see who dotted your posts? Also, is there a way to find out what reason they gave me the bits, like a particular post or comment of mine was specifically what caused the bits to come my way? I find it encouraging when someone dots a post of mine, and I'd think it'd be even more encouraging if someone had spent good cash monies to let me know I'm an awesome person. I figure it must be akin to what a street performer feels like when someone drops a dollar in their instrument case. Perhaps I want to thank the person for being generous. Edit: now I have 25 bits! The bits just keep on coming! But I don't know how! Ooh ooh ooh, let's see if I figured out Hubski yet. I have to shoutout some admin to get a response. Help me Obi-Wamkenobi, you're my only hope!
If we exist in a vacuum devoid of morality or consequence, I think the thought experiment you're proposing is curious, complex, and given I'm a statistics/data nerd and love thought experiments, I like the proposition. Additionally, I'm the type of person who loves EVE because of its spreadsheet nature. Data fascinates me., microsystems, large scale data manipulation and aggregation. Additionally, I'm out of work, spending a lot of time on this site, and if you need another guinea pig, I'm game. In actuality, I am a little concerned that $ would entangle itself in the very fabric of what makes this website the success it is: quality content, not caring about imaginary points, focusing on content rather than popularity. Custom-tailoring content in order to make money off it... (shudders). It reminds of how the current American political system is flawed: it's all about money and popularity, not about actual content. And it's highly possible the site would be flooded with people trying to scam the system, capitalize.
So far I am far out-donating what I am bringing in. Apparently I "share" a lot as I've already dispensed 240 bits, in 10 bit increments. Shazam! This is fun. I could see me turning off my donations for a bit just to accrue more bits and then turn it back on again. Or, I might just reload my bits by donating more...
mk what happens if I circledot and then uncircledot? Do I get my bits back? Is there a grace period? It just came up because I accidentally tapped the circledot on my phone.
Wait, so I'm confused what happens when you don't have any bits at all, the site would still function normally (i.e. you could still circledot someone)? If that's the case I think I'd rather just send money directly to Hubski instead. EDIT: actually, I take that back - This still seems like a good idea if it generally helps to improve the quality of submissions and comments on the site. Either way, maybe there could be a donation status somewhere like reddit does with its reddit gold - shows a progress bar-like status of how much money they've gotten/desired per day?
Yes, shares without bits work the same. That is an interesting idea. We will definitely share the data we get from this.Either way, maybe there could be a donation status somewhere like reddit does with its reddit gold - shows a progress bar-like status of how much money they've gotten/desired per day?
I would like to try. Should we QA for flaws or act as regular, honest individuals?
Imaginary bits bestowed. Hacking it won't tell us much, because we haven't designed it to be robust. Mostly we are interested in how people feel about it, and how it modifies behavior. Try to act as you normally would. Even if you'd normally try to hack it, this wouldn't be a good test for that.I would like to try. Should we QA for flaws or act as regular, honest individuals?
I am willing to help test, seems a cool idea, even though I have no experience w/ bitcoin. Also, is there just a link somewhere to donate straight to Hubski? Because I'm willing to donate a few bucks as I can to you guys.
The whole deal sounds like an exciting social experiment. Where though, will the darker side of human behavior pop up?
Could we expect desperate individuals angle and exploit the system? Or, hack it altogether?
I'd expect that to be a yes, but what tweaks would be needed to circumvent these situations? So far Hubski, to me, represents the most successful venue for thoughtful online conversation I've aware of. Is it possible that it could also create a successful economy based on sharing knowledge and currency for the benefit of all community members?
I imagine we'll have many posts dedicated to the specifics make this a reality.