I think I pissed off the Leo cult for not understanding something, asking questions, and not having enough stake to be able to form a worthwhile opinion. I also made the huge mistake of not reading something before I knew it existed.
oh my bad! make sure to locate the bathrooms, the good ones are hidden.
I ask questions and make myself look like an idiot all the time, it's kind of fun :D I usually wait for people to write about something before I form a biased opinion. Now I know all there is to know about LeoAds rewards and I'm not accepting any alternative information.
I said so many things in this post and that's the response I get?
It can be false advertising today if that's the argument you want to make.
You don't have to wait 6 months.
You're the only one on this platform who's told me we should value our own work and be doing more to act like it and get it out into the world and such. Someone comes along and builds a thing for free and says, "Yeah I'll even pay you to do that." And the response to that is what? The free thing that got built that gives away money is a scam? Again that's another argument that can be made if you want to look at the required 500 LEO power as some kind of rug-pull opportunity where nobody is going to get their money back.
Problem is you haven't made any of these arguments you just make a snide comment and then walk away without risking having any type of opinion whatsoever. I think I'm learning the hard way that when I say the word "FUD" people equate this with "lies and ignorance" or making irresponsible comments. FUD is FUD. It means FUD. It has no bearing on truth. If I'm falling off a cliff I'm probably going to experience some FUD, and for good reason.
Or are you just baiting me into writing this ridiculous wall of text by criticizing the usage of 'fud' and then ironically making a baseless fud statement? Fair play nice work.
Trying to find the humor is all. I asked questions. Didn't get answers. Went to look on my own. Took what I saw on the surface. Tried to wrap my head around it.
I left several comments under that post. I wouldn't say anything I said is negative. Aside from what I saw not being enough for me personally to start using that site and only that site.
I had no idea it was being interpreted in this fashion until now. Now that I've learned. I'd sooner laugh it off and move on. Shouldn't be that big of a deal.
I think I'm missing context because I haven't looked at the other post in a while.
It seems like a lot of people are tilting hard over this rollout.
LEO people especially.
The Discord is heated.
The marketing for this service certainly doesn't align with how it actually works.
100% ad-sharing with content creators >> 99% share to stake holders is jarring to say the least.
Since reaching the bare minimum to receive ad revenue will be next to impossible for majority currently creating content over there, I'd try that consumer angle. Eventually that clicked with me. Consumers are stakeholders, too. So if they're receiving ad revenue in this fashion, the content creator is receiving ad revenue indirectly from their votes. One way to spin it.
Then again it might be a much needed wakeup call if getting 10 views a day on something equates to an impossibility. A feature like this may need a little time to fail miserably before it's decided the numbers need refactoring. Perhaps you'd like me to push this agenda personally. It can be arranged.
It's as simple as actually trying and then showing that even a top earner on the platform can't make the cutoff, or showing that I can barely make it whatever the case may be.
Then again it might be a much needed wakeup call if getting 10 views a day on something equates to an impossibility.
Been thinking about this more. Probably too much.
The situation here goes like this: Write a post, push it out, get those views, bring them this way. Do it again, and again and again. That's how you get your ad revenue with no guarantees, and the local consumer base isn't large enough (does inleo even have 200 consumers roaming about constantly).
Each time is a new set of eyes because the consumer base is not here, like it would be on something like Youtube or anywhere else where these ad revenue shares actually work. Every post is like starting fresh with no market.
Impossible is probably the wrong word. Be difficult to earn consistently. Stakeholder role is guaranteed earnings from this. Stakeholder loses if millions of eyes suddenly show up but nobody signs on for consumer perks. Stakeholder earns more if content creators are viewed less, meaning stakeholders are incentivized to not share content like a consumer would. This doesn't gel.
Also, people search, quickly get their info, and leave. I'd say that's normal behavior online. That approach is on its way out the door. Now with AI, people ask, get their answers, don't even need to visit the sites.
I could probably keep going but there's no need. The solution I find every time is to grab the consumers and keep them around. Each post generating outside views is free advertising for all products on chain provided they sign on. Most viewers won't even know about the perks. They wouldn't know they could stand a stronger chance of earning the ad revenue from the content their viewing than the creator. Wouldn't know they could earn from a leaving a comment. Wouldn't know they can earn by supporting rather than throwing their money away. So many missed opportunities for this entire ecosystem.
Most likely I won't be creating content anymore so this isn't for me anyway. I think I'm just sick and tired of the stagnation and want to see something here thrive before I die and that's it.
1000 new sign ups. Not one reaches 200 views yet combined 1000 people generate 200000 views and this is being called "not enough effort, try harder" and "thank you for your ad revenue." Signed, Mr Stakeholder.
Tough sell.
One thing I've never seen before is a paying consumer earning ad revenue. With something like this system LEO is attempting it's almost as if the consumer is the one in charge of handling where the ad revenue goes. Their votes AND their eyes count and they earn. How interesting.
Have you ever read my ramblings about the neglected consumer role here on Hive and these second layer options? Can't even watch a stream now without seeing that money flying around. Platform takes a cut, content creator gets their cut, consumer is out x dollars. Staking tokens and providing consumer perks like curation reward (earning for tipping) and now even ad revenue. Consumers love supporting content creators. It's billions of dollars annually. We have the systems in place (or in development) to provide consumers what they want to spend their money on, yet we sit around scratching our heads wondering where to get "investors" for our tokens. Those investors are called "consumers".
Since the role is neglected consistently, we now have a platform paying out ad revenue, but 200 views is next to "impossible". These things drive me crazy.
I promised myself I'd stop talking about it and even wrote a post where I "retired" from even thinking about it. Yet once again I'm seeing potential in that angle. We have products, perks, but no consumers. Everywhere else consumers outnumber content by a huge margin. Blah blah blah not sure why I even talking about it...
If you're able to see what I'm seeing, and find a way to make others see it, all the power to you.
I'd align with this comment but honestly the whole basis is
Since the role is neglected consistently, we now have a platform paying out ad revenue, but 200 views is next to "impossible". These things drive me crazy.
Which imo is not impossible at all, it just requires leg work
And this is exactly a way to reward consumers, if you are not a content creator and you do not want to bring in views, fine, power up some $leo and benefit from the lurking.
But not for free, have skin in the game, I've yet to see someone come up with a way to reward consumers just for being there, providing clicks, without any other type of interaction (is it even possible?).
Hopefully this creates enough incentives for people to actually get the views. 200 views is not that hard, it requires 20 people to comment on it, you replying, them replying back, a few organic views from lurkers and a couple shares in web2 and you have 200 views.
It requires some work though, and most hivers are not known for wanting to do the work and got the extra mile without concrete incentives, lol
I've been able to hit 200 views numerous times. Total, across all frontends. Well over 200, numerous times.
My market/following will read my work on one of the top three frontends. What makes this difficult and even annoying is the fact I'd have to tell them at the start of the post to stop reading and click the link leading to inleo and read the post there.
And there's no way I'd do that because it's an inconvenience for the consumer. I could post from Inleo, but majority will be reading it elsewhere. I and several others did not build our brands on LEO products.
200 views means one qualifies for the smallest share possible. So there's that, too. For me, I could probably earn more by voting comments under my post.
Don't get me wrong though. Maybe some people do need more incentives. But I think for the most part, people are working and trying to get views, with incredible content that goes unnoticed, because there are no fucking consumers here!lol
Never, in the history of me, did I ever want to work for advertisers. Still don't. I also don't want to work for LEO stakeholders scooping up the leftovers. If I designed this system you folks are attempting, that money wouldn't go to stakeholders if content creators don't make the cut. The money would go into a pool and grow, waiting to be paid out to content creators who do qualify. However, seeing how it could potentially reward consumers with ad revenue clicks with me. Far more likely to sell that concept since consumers outnumber creators by a huge margin, and they spend the money anyway. If this system manages to attract them and keep them around, I'd be impressed.
Paying people to create content and attract views is wasteful if the consumer doesn't stick around.
I've been able to hit 200 views numerous times. Total, across all frontends. Well over 200, numerous times.
My market/following will read my work on one of the top three frontends. What makes this difficult and even annoying is the fact I'd have to tell them at the start of the post to stop reading and click the link leading to inleo and read the post there.
And there's no way I'd do that because it's an inconvenience for the consumer. I could post from Inleo, but majority will be reading it elsewhere. I and several others did not build our brands on LEO products.
Dunno man, this is still said with a mindset of creating hive content for hive (few) readers... But if someone shares their content on X, reddit, medium and facebook, using a link to inleo, those views you talk about - which you are correct, the content consumption on hive comes from peakd or ecency mainly and it is tiny - won't matter compared to the views one can get from audiences outside of hive.
About the second part of your comment I cannot really argue because it's a matter of opinion and mindset, which I fully respect and understand though I don't share.
In the end it all depends on how people look at the scenario displayed by inLeo. People can either argue for or against it, all I know is that I'm in for bringing in outside ad capital to the hive ecosystem and hopefully, hopefully, get a flywheel or snowball effect going.
In the end I figured out most of it on my own, before reading this post. Also offered some perspective under your other post on how the idea could be sold to consumers.
What the fuck Elmer?
I think I pissed off the Leo cult for not understanding something, asking questions, and not having enough stake to be able to form a worthwhile opinion. I also made the huge mistake of not reading something before I knew it existed.
That's my takeaway lol...
noob
It's my first day, but I start tomorrow.
oh my bad! make sure to locate the bathrooms, the good ones are hidden.
I ask questions and make myself look like an idiot all the time, it's kind of fun :D I usually wait for people to write about something before I form a biased opinion. Now I know all there is to know about LeoAds rewards and I'm not accepting any alternative information.
I'm so stupid I write "idiot" on my forehead and spell it wrong...
I don't think we are pissed :P
Didn't think you were either.
I said so many things in this post and that's the response I get?
It can be false advertising today if that's the argument you want to make.
You don't have to wait 6 months.
You're the only one on this platform who's told me we should value our own work and be doing more to act like it and get it out into the world and such. Someone comes along and builds a thing for free and says, "Yeah I'll even pay you to do that." And the response to that is what? The free thing that got built that gives away money is a scam? Again that's another argument that can be made if you want to look at the required 500 LEO power as some kind of rug-pull opportunity where nobody is going to get their money back.
Problem is you haven't made any of these arguments you just make a snide comment and then walk away without risking having any type of opinion whatsoever. I think I'm learning the hard way that when I say the word "FUD" people equate this with "lies and ignorance" or making irresponsible comments. FUD is FUD. It means FUD. It has no bearing on truth. If I'm falling off a cliff I'm probably going to experience some FUD, and for good reason.
Or are you just baiting me into writing this ridiculous wall of text by criticizing the usage of 'fud' and then ironically making a baseless fud statement? Fair play nice work.
Trying to find the humor is all. I asked questions. Didn't get answers. Went to look on my own. Took what I saw on the surface. Tried to wrap my head around it.
I left several comments under that post. I wouldn't say anything I said is negative. Aside from what I saw not being enough for me personally to start using that site and only that site.
I had no idea it was being interpreted in this fashion until now. Now that I've learned. I'd sooner laugh it off and move on. Shouldn't be that big of a deal.
P.S. I staked some LEO just to be like that...
I think I'm missing context because I haven't looked at the other post in a while.
It seems like a lot of people are tilting hard over this rollout.
LEO people especially.
The Discord is heated.
The marketing for this service certainly doesn't align with how it actually works.
100% ad-sharing with content creators >> 99% share to stake holders is jarring to say the least.
Since reaching the bare minimum to receive ad revenue will be next to impossible for majority currently creating content over there, I'd try that consumer angle. Eventually that clicked with me. Consumers are stakeholders, too. So if they're receiving ad revenue in this fashion, the content creator is receiving ad revenue indirectly from their votes. One way to spin it.
Then again it might be a much needed wakeup call if getting 10 views a day on something equates to an impossibility. A feature like this may need a little time to fail miserably before it's decided the numbers need refactoring. Perhaps you'd like me to push this agenda personally. It can be arranged.
It's as simple as actually trying and then showing that even a top earner on the platform can't make the cutoff, or showing that I can barely make it whatever the case may be.
Been thinking about this more. Probably too much.
The situation here goes like this: Write a post, push it out, get those views, bring them this way. Do it again, and again and again. That's how you get your ad revenue with no guarantees, and the local consumer base isn't large enough (does inleo even have 200 consumers roaming about constantly).
Each time is a new set of eyes because the consumer base is not here, like it would be on something like Youtube or anywhere else where these ad revenue shares actually work. Every post is like starting fresh with no market.
Impossible is probably the wrong word. Be difficult to earn consistently. Stakeholder role is guaranteed earnings from this. Stakeholder loses if millions of eyes suddenly show up but nobody signs on for consumer perks. Stakeholder earns more if content creators are viewed less, meaning stakeholders are incentivized to not share content like a consumer would. This doesn't gel.
Also, people search, quickly get their info, and leave. I'd say that's normal behavior online. That approach is on its way out the door. Now with AI, people ask, get their answers, don't even need to visit the sites.
I could probably keep going but there's no need. The solution I find every time is to grab the consumers and keep them around. Each post generating outside views is free advertising for all products on chain provided they sign on. Most viewers won't even know about the perks. They wouldn't know they could stand a stronger chance of earning the ad revenue from the content their viewing than the creator. Wouldn't know they could earn from a leaving a comment. Wouldn't know they can earn by supporting rather than throwing their money away. So many missed opportunities for this entire ecosystem.
Most likely I won't be creating content anymore so this isn't for me anyway. I think I'm just sick and tired of the stagnation and want to see something here thrive before I die and that's it.
1000 new sign ups. Not one reaches 200 views yet combined 1000 people generate 200000 views and this is being called "not enough effort, try harder" and "thank you for your ad revenue." Signed, Mr Stakeholder.
Tough sell.
One thing I've never seen before is a paying consumer earning ad revenue. With something like this system LEO is attempting it's almost as if the consumer is the one in charge of handling where the ad revenue goes. Their votes AND their eyes count and they earn. How interesting.
Have you ever read my ramblings about the neglected consumer role here on Hive and these second layer options? Can't even watch a stream now without seeing that money flying around. Platform takes a cut, content creator gets their cut, consumer is out x dollars. Staking tokens and providing consumer perks like curation reward (earning for tipping) and now even ad revenue. Consumers love supporting content creators. It's billions of dollars annually. We have the systems in place (or in development) to provide consumers what they want to spend their money on, yet we sit around scratching our heads wondering where to get "investors" for our tokens. Those investors are called "consumers".
Since the role is neglected consistently, we now have a platform paying out ad revenue, but 200 views is next to "impossible". These things drive me crazy.
I promised myself I'd stop talking about it and even wrote a post where I "retired" from even thinking about it. Yet once again I'm seeing potential in that angle. We have products, perks, but no consumers. Everywhere else consumers outnumber content by a huge margin. Blah blah blah not sure why I even talking about it...
If you're able to see what I'm seeing, and find a way to make others see it, all the power to you.
I'd align with this comment but honestly the whole basis is
Which imo is not impossible at all, it just requires leg work
And this is exactly a way to reward consumers, if you are not a content creator and you do not want to bring in views, fine, power up some $leo and benefit from the lurking.
But not for free, have skin in the game, I've yet to see someone come up with a way to reward consumers just for being there, providing clicks, without any other type of interaction (is it even possible?).
Hopefully this creates enough incentives for people to actually get the views. 200 views is not that hard, it requires 20 people to comment on it, you replying, them replying back, a few organic views from lurkers and a couple shares in web2 and you have 200 views.
It requires some work though, and most hivers are not known for wanting to do the work and got the extra mile without concrete incentives, lol
I've been able to hit 200 views numerous times. Total, across all frontends. Well over 200, numerous times.
My market/following will read my work on one of the top three frontends. What makes this difficult and even annoying is the fact I'd have to tell them at the start of the post to stop reading and click the link leading to inleo and read the post there.
And there's no way I'd do that because it's an inconvenience for the consumer. I could post from Inleo, but majority will be reading it elsewhere. I and several others did not build our brands on LEO products.
200 views means one qualifies for the smallest share possible. So there's that, too. For me, I could probably earn more by voting comments under my post.
Don't get me wrong though. Maybe some people do need more incentives. But I think for the most part, people are working and trying to get views, with incredible content that goes unnoticed, because there are no fucking consumers here! lol
Never, in the history of me, did I ever want to work for advertisers. Still don't. I also don't want to work for LEO stakeholders scooping up the leftovers. If I designed this system you folks are attempting, that money wouldn't go to stakeholders if content creators don't make the cut. The money would go into a pool and grow, waiting to be paid out to content creators who do qualify. However, seeing how it could potentially reward consumers with ad revenue clicks with me. Far more likely to sell that concept since consumers outnumber creators by a huge margin, and they spend the money anyway. If this system manages to attract them and keep them around, I'd be impressed.
Paying people to create content and attract views is wasteful if the consumer doesn't stick around.
Dunno man, this is still said with a mindset of creating hive content for hive (few) readers... But if someone shares their content on X, reddit, medium and facebook, using a link to inleo, those views you talk about - which you are correct, the content consumption on hive comes from peakd or ecency mainly and it is tiny - won't matter compared to the views one can get from audiences outside of hive.
About the second part of your comment I cannot really argue because it's a matter of opinion and mindset, which I fully respect and understand though I don't share.
In the end it all depends on how people look at the scenario displayed by inLeo. People can either argue for or against it, all I know is that I'm in for bringing in outside ad capital to the hive ecosystem and hopefully, hopefully, get a flywheel or snowball effect going.
I wonder if this bout of heated confusion will lead to you qualifying for evergreen rewards.
Hint: Probably not, if it all takes place on Discord. (Those ads don't care if you're happy or mad.)
In the end I figured out most of it on my own, before reading this post. Also offered some perspective under your other post on how the idea could be sold to consumers.
Someone freaking out probably wouldn't do that...