The argument of traditional stock being worthless isn’t just that they could dilute, which they could in any number of ways, but they could end sharing anytime, change the % share, or do any number of the squeezes for-profit VC companies end up doing like ”introducing” prioritized white-labeled content. Again, the trust is what matters.
> Google2 is not going to pay people $30 an hour (crypto or USD) to upvote comments or submit useful content. I know this because Google1 barely pays YouTubers (outside of the top x% who make real money, and even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google)
Google pays tons of content people, they also have 130 billion in cash.
Google2 may make the mistake of being greedy, but GoogleN may not because they have a team that realizes less greed = users paid more = more incentive. Forking is a feature not a bug.
Success being correlated with fairness in equity distribution, users having stake and say in the platforms they use, creators having contracts with how they earn their living that can’t be changed on a whim, and if they ever do change, it’s by a democratic process, and creators then being able to vote with their feet to fork.
Seems like a good thing.
> even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google
> That's a very clear indicator of 'money on the table' - money that the owners chose not to return to the people performing labor for the company, whether volunteer or employee.
To be clear, I think these companies need to be non-profit but still pay their team well (a fixed rate to some sort of inflation basket that tracks competitive engineer salaries, for example).
> Google2 is not going to pay people $30 an hour (crypto or USD) to upvote comments or submit useful content. I know this because Google1 barely pays YouTubers (outside of the top x% who make real money, and even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google)
Google pays tons of content people, they also have 130 billion in cash.
Google2 may make the mistake of being greedy, but GoogleN may not because they have a team that realizes less greed = users paid more = more incentive. Forking is a feature not a bug.
Success being correlated with fairness in equity distribution, users having stake and say in the platforms they use, creators having contracts with how they earn their living that can’t be changed on a whim, and if they ever do change, it’s by a democratic process, and creators then being able to vote with their feet to fork.
Seems like a good thing.
> even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google
> That's a very clear indicator of 'money on the table' - money that the owners chose not to return to the people performing labor for the company, whether volunteer or employee.
These are arguments for crypto.
> https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/18843/how-does-a-p...
GoogleN can design the coin/share pool however they want, so I don’t see what the argument is.
Looking at the current front page, seems like a Wikipedia2 would work too https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
To be clear, I think these companies need to be non-profit but still pay their team well (a fixed rate to some sort of inflation basket that tracks competitive engineer salaries, for example).