Hi @tmaust. This is a very interesting aspect surrounding the use Steem, particularly in the cultural sector, so I wanted to jump in here and give my 2 cents. The ethics angle is a unique one and I'm glad you looked into it. On face value at certain times, it does seem like crypto does not seem a reliable/stable source of income/value. But there are a few crucial points that make what you and your colleagues have done something unprecedented.
First, and I'm starting with a more difficult one, earning crypto is far different than receiving a predetermined wage or payment. Volatility aside, it opens up the doors for donors (or in this case 'upvoters') to become personally invested in any effort you do. At this point, any Steemian that has read your class' posts are motivated to help you succeed since it will benefit their ultimate goal of raising market value as well. This is a very different relationship than some money-bags-McGee writing a fat check to a non-profit without any expectations. Crypto also adds a great deal of functionality that money cannot sustain, upvotes and curation rewards being the prime examples on the Steem blockchain.
Second, it has to be stated that non-profits do not operate with a sustainable business model. Unlike for-profit companies, employee work does not recoup or translate into direct profits for any institutions, thus making everyone that works in a museum reliant on debt and donation. I can understand the comparison of $18/hour with other hourly jobs, but from the perspective of an institution that is not efficiently monetizing that work, that amount of Steem is compensation they would otherwise never have access to.
This brings me to the point I cannot stress enough. Just like when engineers discovered ways of harvesting passive energy in solar, wind, and water that harvested a new resource more passively, tools like Steemit take the exact content that is being produced to no end in classrooms, studios, institutions, and so on and transforming that effort into an impactful resource/fund. @phillyhistory hit on this point as well that on a day-to-day basis, the vast majority of academic, social, and cultural work barely pass by more than a few pairs of eyes and are actually drains on existing resources. We're looking to flip that on its head. I don't know of any class in any subject in history that has accrued $5-10,000 with its homework.
And as a last little cherry on top, I'm guessing you did the hourly evaluations yesterday when the price of Steem was ~2 USD. As of now, it looks like the token is maintaining momentum at about 35% above that, shifting the ~18USD to ~24USD.
We at @sndbox will write some articles soon that elaborate on each of these points and again, thanks for bringing this topic up as it helps us make a stronger case for using crypto as well!
This just seems harsh.
I know, and I wish it were not the case. To clarify, I'm also including the vast amount of research, assignments, and thesis work that is usually only transferred between 2 or 3 pairs of hands. The vast amount of creative work (sketches, prototypes, napkin notes, even finished products), curatorial work, and social work do not make it farther than a dedicated few and a short lifespan.
For me, this all boils down to the fact that modern cultural production is for the most part incompatible with modern economy. Even the most 'successful' institutions in the world (let's take for example the Met or the MoMA just a subway ride away from me) cannot sustain themselves with their own cultural offerings (in the form of ticket sales or ticketed events). They are almost completely reliant on endowments and external support.
Again, what I think you and your classmates have done is monetize the previously unmonetizable and set a precedent for all types of cultural production, especially in the academic domain.
I think my fundamental discomfort is with that monetization. I think that modern cultural production should be incompatible with our current economy.