Giá Life on SolLIFE

so this is a classic dilemma of: if you incentivize the watchers (technically super low barrier) you easily get sybil attacked by all the loopholes in the rules, and the money goes in vain (don’t ask me how I know this considering all the past giveaways we attempted to do targeting the *real users* in my past life), but no matter giving double or half the streamers are not going to go anywhere so the money is indeed more wisely used if distributed a bit back to the real watchers so how do we solve this? ideally the simple solution is to charge accounts who wanted to get paid for a slightest bit of entry fee, with the expectation that they could earn more from the stream. For those who don’t want to get paid, doesn’t matter let them watch for free. But for those who want to get paid, give them the right risk rewards: charge them for a bit, and give them the possibility that they can make the entry fee back this should be the gist of designing every single decentralized social protocol - if you want to users to be willing to pay for any form of social engagement, you’d better give them a risk rewards. At the end these protocols are all value network where people would want to play game theories and optimize for every step they take to not lose or even gain (and hence these actions are high signals and valuable information) . If the audience think the creator is worthwhile for the entry fee and they see the possibility to gain back and earn more from their initial payment, they will pay also this is an orchestration of “investing in this tweet at x of likes”

the moment u switch from illiquid 20-50x’s to liquid 2-5x’s, life instantly gets better

VC is tough 10-year fund life cycle at year 5 (assuming a fund II) you're already investing in startups that aim to disrupt the companies in fund I 😁

RT @TheMoonCarl: LAST SHAKEOUT BEFORE THE CRAZIEST ALTCOIN SEASON OF YOUR LIFE 🚀