Hi to you,

very interesting to follow the comments underneath your article. I would like to give you my personal view on this.

The question is in principle, how are the witnesses paid and by whom? If there is no hierarchy, i.e. no official company that offers employees or, for that matter, freelancers a contract that both parties can rely on, the payment model is uncertain.

The witness must then simultaneously look for other ways of earning money in addition to contributing his technical skills in order to be compensated for his efforts. At least that is how I understand the whole thing here.

If no one enters into a binding contract with anyone, no one has any reliability to expect from anyone. The individual is thrown back on himself, which he naturally tries to compensate for. The witnesses who have found a way to balance their costs and energy input do so through, for example, their blog and its payouts and through the founding of groups, so-called communities. Someone who has to look after himself, without the usual hierarchy and given security of a structure according to the usual contractual conditions, must behave selfishly if he sees no other way.

The first witnesses have ensured that their established interest groups always remain stable and have created the illusion that it is the community that decides on the value of a publication. Of course, this is not quite true, because neither ocd nor curie or curangel, for example, have a specification of what exactly is voted up. The matter is quite vague, because it can be anything. The lack of specialisation in, for example, literature or art, photography or craft, etc. is precisely what the big drivers lack, but they nevertheless appropriate all categories for themselves without standing for a specific category.

Therefore, the other-interest groups are competition as long as they grow and receive support from competing single whales. How undesirable it is for something new to emerge, for diverse categories and interest groups to form independently and with financial success, can be seen in the fact that, for example, newcomers to the platform are immediately fished out by those whose pool is already very large. As a newcomer, you are initially flattered by such a surprisingly large upvote total. Then, after the introduction post, the cent amounts that flow in through blogging lead the user to search for the fattest sinecures, and he naturally finds them in the largest interest groups and curation trails.

It's all quite normal and basically no one is to blame for the way things are. It is probably a reflection of our times that a public platform based on electricity and computer technology does not know or need corporate governance. All it needs is participation and transactions. In the process, content is basically overcome, in other words: it matters little what one posts, only that one posts. A certain superficial standard can be attached to this, such as the length, illustration and popularity of a topic. Just like a respected voting behaviour and so-called engagement among users.

That it won't grow here is uncertain, but I share the scepticism about it, insofar as nothing changes in the person structure of the top witnesses and the efforts to keep their own communities at the top end. I don't even know to what extent these people even know or coordinate with each other and whether they are able to really step out of their own perspective or whether they are too dependent on it. I guess it depends on whether running a Blokchain is their only source of income and they pay their rent and living expenses from it in the real world.

I think it is true what some people interested in the future have said: the media person stands alone in the media world, he has no binding contract with anyone, he is exposed to the arbitrariness of the algorythms and the automatic processes without really finding a contact person who feels responsible. It all gives the appearance of a sense of responsibility, but it merely reflects the problem the individual already has vis-à-vis the corporations: There is no one to grab hold of to formulate any claims when it comes to cross-border, non-local, non-physically real entities. The existing legislation that protects employees at work, for example, does not exist here. It is basically a lawless space, a new Wild West, but quite different from the one we know from the touchable reality.

Greetings.