What comes to mind when you read the word "click-bait"? For me it's disappointment, a little anger, disappointment in myself for being tricked. All bad things.
The content of a click-bait video or article rarely has any value to the consumer as it's usually totally misadvertised, exaggerated, or just a outright lie.
More effort goes into making the thumbnail as eye catching and tempting to click as possible than goes into making the content enjoyable or useful. And it's all because of a pesky little thing called views.
Views are good! When you write an article you want as many people to read it as possible, but views should not be seen as a measure of success, and should also not be rewarded as such.
This is where Leo differs to any other platform I've seen. Content creators are rewarded based on their... Well. Content.
Viewers aren't lured in by misleading thumbnails ahem just so the creator can get their advertising bounty, rewards aren't dished out totally randomly by a bot literally called "TheRandomRewarder" (looking at you read.cash), nor are they given to other users with the option to take 80% for themselves.
Instead articles are rewarded as they should be, based on their content and effort. Frankly I'm shocked it's taken so long for such a system to exist.
I was inspired to write this after reading an article from a curator complaining there is too much good content on the site to be able to upvote as much as they'd like.
What a brilliant compliment for a platform to receive.
