The thing about posts, though... There is no evidence that they are actually worth anything. What is the point of bending over backwards to reward "content" when there is no reason to believe that such content benefits existing stakeholders?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I would argue that we have definitive proof that the content on the platform is entirely irrelevant. An individual post adds no value to the platform. The price has consistently fallen, regardless of what's posted. New investment is lacking, regardless of what's posted. Users are powering down, regardless of what's posted. Users receive plenty of upvotes, regardless of what they post. The content doesn't matter.
Investors want to see an active, growing, human user base. They want to know how that user base can be monetized. And then they want to see revenue streams and how they will be able to achieve ROI. None of that depends on someone's essay on metaphysics, their pizzagate conspiracy, or their picture of grandma's sick dog. All that matters is growth, revenue, and ROI.
So, how do we achieve the growth when anyone who doesn't want to be a blogger or commenter is considered "not valuable" and removed from the rewards equation? Blogging platforms are not sustained by only bloggers. And they appear to be a dying business model anyway. The readers and voters need to be incentivized in a system with incentives. They are the larger and more important demographic for growth and revenue (especially advertisements). To deny them rewards is to likely forego the possibility of increasing the site's value.
A perpetual giveaway to users with no incentive or need to invest isn't a sustainable model. It will fail.