As a (sort of) beta tester I have to say that your project deserves the highlights. I have to agree with @fredrikaa - this is one of the most sustainable projects out there. I also went through this journey with you, therefore I believe that I should give you my honest feedback.
I think it would be great to add one significant fact into this article (but also overall presentation of the project). Major aspect for me is that it changes the way advertisement works. The investor gives you the direct power of upvoting (or rather don’t start with it at the first place), which means that the content can remain objective (even critical) and still be eligible for the rewards, or in other words, you just decentralized adverts! Mention it for god’s sake:D!
Lastly there is the "metadata policy". Sadly you currently support the decision not to subsequently change the stats on your “beta testers" after the Decenternet’s task is finished. I think that this is the same as if you didn’t reward the early contributors of the platform. Don they deserve such a minor advantage as acknowledging the valid metadata to users that contributed to its creation? Think about it:P.
Otherwise I can only wish you the best of luck. Continue doing the awesome job and I’ll in turn help you as much as possible (by my own means :D) .
See answer bellow:).
Thanks @fingersik for your feedback. I'd say that it's more about decentralising grassroots community building. In the trial we have run for the last few days, lots of people who had never heard of a specific project are now very educated about it. They have looked into it deeply, and have been able to propogate the ideas about it in their own words. They haven't been gushing, there has been reason and balance, and a good number have found small errors or omissions in whitepapers etc. Concepts and connections which even the investor had not made have been conceived by the writers. It's quite incredible really. So I would say that unlike advertising, which is normally passive (you sit there and watch whilst we TELL you a message), this is something wholly different. People are volunteering to review, to learn, to engage. Now THAT is the powerful message.
In this post, we wanted to let people know about the platform and thank our supporters more than anyone else. The ideology of what is behind this, and the subtleties, well, we can talk about them later in other posts, and we do want people to understand what we are doing, and to be able to choose to get involved.
One last thing, what do you mean when you talk about the "metadata policy?" I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, but happy to talk about it here or in the Discord.
And thanks for your help with some of the testing, and your continued presence on the platform!
Gotcha. In fact I totally agree with what you just said. I didn’t mention any of those aspects because I felt that the article already tackled them. I merely just tried to pin point another positive aspect of the project that I lacked in the introduction. Or don’t you think that the way how clients don’t directly reward the content (sort of advert) creators is a revolutionary concept?:) I firmly believe that using this method, (sort of) adverts about any given topic will be much more objective (or rather objective for the first time?).
About the "metadata policy" I could have made myself clearer I guess:P. What I meant is that since we are not posting through Oracle d’s platform, our stats won’t change whatsoever. As far as I know, you’re not going to subsequently attribute the metadata (stats we have rightfully acquired) after you successfully launch the platform (this opinion is based on a discussion with ppro via discord). That is shame I think. Am I understood now? What is the reasoning behind your decision if I may ask?
Well, technically, the platform launches on Monday. Yes, some people have made posts already, but onlythrough Steemit, not via the platform as you know.
The Rankings (which i think is what you're referring to) will be automated and based on performance through the oracle-d system, and will change dynamically. With the trail we have run this last couple of weeks, the amount of time it would take to work this out manually is huge. So, whilst we may at our disgression increase the rank of a few people, we aren't going to say definitely that we will do this, because frankly it's a ton of work, and we've spent the last few weeks on 16 hour days and no life whatsoever. I hope that answers it. It's no slight on anyone whatsoever, just impractical at this stage without devoting tons of hours.
And yes, the fact that the client doesn't directly engage with or reward the writer is revolutionary. Because we will be using multiple oracles, and thresholds for review are needed to gain an upvote, alongside using third party Quality checking, this makes it a very unique, and decentralised way of doing it, and this was always the intention.
Cool well that’s pretty much what I lacked in the introduction is all I’m saying regarding point 1:).
About the point 2, if it is difficult then I see why you wouldn’t want to do it. I didn’t imagine the metadata folder to be so complicated:) Anyway it’s just an effort of producing feedback. I don’t usually just lick asses of those that pay me – call it my ninja way:D. Your decisions regarding the feedback wont alter my feelings about the project in anyway:D