Suppose a dynamic in which a creator announces that wants to complete a task. E.g.:
Creator: “I would like to give a lesson teaching how to remove the background of a photo”.
The creator optionally puts a threshold in which, once the users already demonstrated enough interest, the creator starts streaming his job. Let’s suppose, e.g., that the last creator have put the threshold: “$50.00”.
Users decide to “put money on the table” on the platform, signaling interest in seeing the creator accomplishing the task.
Users can also signal interest without putting money on the table. The conventional “Like system”. The creator can also put a threshold on the number of likes he would be willing to create the content.
Suppose during an hour these users demonstrated interest:
Once the sum(Users_and_values.values()) == 50 (it hits the threshold), the platform signal to the creator that there are enough users willing to pay for his content.
The creator starts streaming what he promised he would do (all registered users on the creator channel receive notification messages). During the stream, the users that had showed interest (and those that hadn’t too) in paying can pay any time, any amount of what has been promised. For example, once the streamer already have accomplished 50% of what he promised (and signal that), users could decide to pay 50% of what they promised. “Paying as he goes” would be very cool and it would have a bar being automatically updated showing the amount already collected by the creator during the stream. If the job is not good or it is not like what has been promised by the creator, users can simply not pay. Users could simply pay 100% of what they said they were willing to pay once the streaming ends. I think you get the idea. If not, let me know if this is not clear.
Rules:
Users can not show willingness to pay more than what they have on their wallet;
If a user says he is willing to pay $1.00 for seeing a task accomplished by a creator and the user didn’t pay anything after the creator accomplished his job, the user should justify why. If he doesn’t justify, his karma will be lowered and the next time he promises to pay $1.00, the amount would be multiplied by the probability of he paying.
There should be a threshold on maximum willingness to pay. Otherwise, an user with $1,000,000 could just show fake willingness to pay for all creators.
The payments would occur using the digital currency NANO, that allows free and instant transactions. I would like to see your input on the general idea, there are several details not discussed yet.
For instance, this could be used to reward LessWrong creators for creating their posts. Or even noobs like me would be willing to try more crazy ideas just because there are enough money on the game. Normally, I wouldn’t randomly “create a sale system for bakeries”. But if people suddenly said they would pay $50 bucks for seeing me doing that, that’s a completely new story.
Users could also create their posts requesting what they want:
Eliezer: “Suppose you underwent a low-risk Corona exposure situation, but you very much want to avoid infecting a pool of friends or housemates. Is there a 50⁄20 (if maybe not 80⁄20) on quarantining yourself away during the time when you are most likely to be (quite?) contagious without having developed symptoms? [...] $500 for a definitive response of this kind with citations. ”
So Eliezer creates the post, and puts the money. Users start submitting their answers to the post, and whenever Eliezer sees a satisfying solution, he simply clicks on “reward user”.
If Eliezer never pays anyone on a sucession of posts and without justification, he could have his karma lowered. Users could report other people that are creating baits
Suppose a dynamic in which a creator announces that wants to complete a task. E.g.:
Creator: “I would like to give a lesson teaching how to remove the background of a photo”.
The creator optionally puts a threshold in which, once the users already demonstrated enough interest, the creator starts streaming his job. Let’s suppose, e.g., that the last creator have put the threshold: “$50.00”.
Users decide to “put money on the table” on the platform, signaling interest in seeing the creator accomplishing the task.
Users can also signal interest without putting money on the table. The conventional “Like system”. The creator can also put a threshold on the number of likes he would be willing to create the content.
Suppose during an hour these users demonstrated interest:
Users_and_values = {User1: $0.50; User2: $2.50; User3: $1.50; User4: $0.25; User5: $0.00004522; … ; UserN: $0.10}
Once the sum(Users_and_values.values()) == 50 (it hits the threshold), the platform signal to the creator that there are enough users willing to pay for his content.
The creator starts streaming what he promised he would do (all registered users on the creator channel receive notification messages). During the stream, the users that had showed interest (and those that hadn’t too) in paying can pay any time, any amount of what has been promised. For example, once the streamer already have accomplished 50% of what he promised (and signal that), users could decide to pay 50% of what they promised. “Paying as he goes” would be very cool and it would have a bar being automatically updated showing the amount already collected by the creator during the stream. If the job is not good or it is not like what has been promised by the creator, users can simply not pay. Users could simply pay 100% of what they said they were willing to pay once the streaming ends. I think you get the idea. If not, let me know if this is not clear.
Rules:
Users can not show willingness to pay more than what they have on their wallet;
If a user says he is willing to pay $1.00 for seeing a task accomplished by a creator and the user didn’t pay anything after the creator accomplished his job, the user should justify why. If he doesn’t justify, his karma will be lowered and the next time he promises to pay $1.00, the amount would be multiplied by the probability of he paying.
There should be a threshold on maximum willingness to pay. Otherwise, an user with $1,000,000 could just show fake willingness to pay for all creators.
The payments would occur using the digital currency NANO, that allows free and instant transactions. I would like to see your input on the general idea, there are several details not discussed yet.
For instance, this could be used to reward LessWrong creators for creating their posts. Or even noobs like me would be willing to try more crazy ideas just because there are enough money on the game. Normally, I wouldn’t randomly “create a sale system for bakeries”. But if people suddenly said they would pay $50 bucks for seeing me doing that, that’s a completely new story.
Users could also create their posts requesting what they want:
Eliezer: “Suppose you underwent a low-risk Corona exposure situation, but you very much want to avoid infecting a pool of friends or housemates. Is there a 50⁄20 (if maybe not 80⁄20) on quarantining yourself away during the time when you are most likely to be (quite?) contagious without having developed symptoms? [...] $500 for a definitive response of this kind with citations. ”
So Eliezer creates the post, and puts the money. Users start submitting their answers to the post, and whenever Eliezer sees a satisfying solution, he simply clicks on “reward user”.
If Eliezer never pays anyone on a sucession of posts and without justification, he could have his karma lowered. Users could report other people that are creating baits