It is a question that comes up often, but after well ovre three years, I still don't have a definitive answer - what kind of content adds value to the blockchain? Does anyone know for sure?
In my opinion, valuable content is content that generates action, not just a transaction. It is something people who read it can engage and interact personally with in a way that makes them think and potentially changes their behavior in a way that increases their life value in some way. This means that it has to go beyond the topic and connect at a human level with the reader in order for them to consider and then act upon their consideration - potentially, the consideration part is not required - but the action part is.
One clear example might be content which positions information in a way that encourages people to power up some Hive. To do this requires more than saying, "Hey, the price is good, go buy" unless that person is already keen on increasing their investment and hasn't already been watching the markets. For those who are on the fence or currently unwilling, the information and approach needed requires something different.
In just this particular case, it is obvious that depending on the audience, a range of content is required in order to cover all positions, which normally means, multiple posts, multiple authors, multiple approaches and multiple instances. The entry level is a gateway for first actions for one sector of the audience, far too basic for other sectors - while the technical level might be great for those who have a lot of prerequisite history, but totally over the head of a newbie looking for a gateway in.
This means that for example "Hive content" can't all be the same and shouldn't be classed as such. If we use math to illustrate this, simple addition and subtraction is far too basic for quantum physicists - but they had to start somewhere. I wonder, which level of math is more important, the foundation that is required for the later stages, or the later stages that solves problems we face as a society?
It is easy to look at the outcomes and say that the solution to problems is ore valuable than the basics, but there is not even a chicken or egg argument, without the basics, the advanced levels are impossible to accomplish. This doesn't mean that teaching basics is always useful, but blanketing information means that some portion of the recipients will go on to work their way up the informational ladder of discovery - in math, some might become engineers, some might be rocket scientists, some might design the AI that makes us all mentally obsolete.
With content on Hive though, what is it that adds value? I believe that it is ultimately an unanswerable question unless the answer is, it all adds some kind of value. However, this doesn't mean that all content should receive value in return. For example, spam adds value through transaction mass as well as the organization of members of the community to combat it. Reward pool abusers add value for the same reason, as communities form that bring people together to rally against it - in doing so, they move wider in the system and learn a great deal more about how the infrastructure works and, how humans work. This doesn't mean pool abusers should get a cut - but they can try.
We can look at content that gets a lot of engagement and say that it ads value, but that doesn't have to be the case either, as it will only add value to the coin for example if it encourages the buying or locking up of stake - demand and scarcity. Similarly, distribution can be a massive driver of value - if that distribution is going to accounts that are going to use it well, use it to add value. Whatever that means.
I have heard often people talk about how many great content creators have left, without them seeing the problem. Yeah, we need great content creators, but more than that - we need far, far more eyes on what is created. Without eyes on work, there is no value. What Hive needs, is a great audience, people who come in, consume content and share it out to the world - the topic matters less than the reach - which is why initiatives that push out to Twitter, Reddit and similar are great.
Once there are more consumers of content, it will attract more creators - as they will want an audience. This is why the focus should be far less on getting paid to post and far more on getting paid to consume. And yes, the "pay" through curation isn't very much - but that is actually not where the value is, that is a perk. Unlike any other paid content subscription service - what is paid into Hive, stays in Hive. Yes, the value might fluctuate, but the number of coins themselves only continues to grow - even if slowly.
What this means is that in time, a content consumer can add value by locking up stake, sharing content and adding their voice through comments - by adding demand for content. This eventually will drive the demand for the token, supply of content creators and topics and increased value of the ecosystem.
If a person who pays 10 dollars a month for Hive tokens to increase their consumer voice, at the end of the year they would have some number of HIVE which will hold some value, higher or lower than the 120 put in. That same 120 put into Netflix for example will be - gone. The normal subscription model doesn't return anything to the purchaser, but on Hive - that purchase is retained as HIVE and as long as it is powered up, always will be.
That means that a consumer of 10 years on Hive might hold thousands of tokens, but what will they be worth if over the space of those ten years Hive becomes a common content delivery source that powers the internet in all kinds of ways? Because the tokens are held in a private wallet, investing in as a consumer is investing in as an investor also - and it could be far more lucrative over time than many other investment vehicles.
Perhaps what is valuable content is what either attracts new viewers in to the ecosystem or, what serves them when they arrive. I think that applications should be working very hard to bring in new consumer eyes and when hey arrive, there should be content worth consuming - but, nothing is easy. As individuals, I think that we should perhaps be inviting people in as viewers of content rather than pushing with the creator aspect to begin with. This way, they can get in and enjoy the content, get accustomed to the ecosystem and culture and then, if they want, start posting. Of course, they might want to post straight away also, but that is up to them. Most people who use YouTube have never posted a video - yet still use it often.
While I still have no idea definitively what kind of content adds value to the blockchain, I think that it has to be something that people enjoy consuming or, offers them something that improves their life. It is no wonder that crypto news can do well as people see it as a way to increase their wealth - and similarly, it is no wonder platform content does well because this is where people are invested and therefore, interested in.
When you are interested in something, it makes that thing much more enjoyable and therefore consumable -it isn't rocket science. But, this is why a great deal more consumers are needed as with more consumers, there are more people interested in things with much of it laying outside crypto and platform. The more the audience grows, the more variation in preference and content creators will be able to segment for the audience. But, if the emphasis is placed on earning and that is the main focus, being an audience member isn't the best way for most to go - content creator is.
A conundrum for many and part of the reason that so few make it long-term in the system, as they spend a lot of time creating for a potentially non-present audience or one that is already spread thin, and not much time consuming for their own enjoyment. I wonder how many work out that creation isn't for them and instead spend their time consuming and engaging on the platform, because they like it.
Well, that is a long post with no satisfactory answer, but if you made it this far, I guess it was good enough to at least skim. Is it valuable for the blockchain? Well, that is going to depend on what people do after reading it, do thoughts change in any way, do actions adjust slightly, are the decisions made tomorrow in any way different? The vote value the post might receive adds value to me, it adds value to the held stake (as I power up most of what I get) and it adds value to those who vote on it through curation - but hopefully, it might also improve life a little in some way - although that kind of outcome is impossible to track as it takes time.
And perhaps this is the thing with valuable content; it isn't a list of bullet points, it isn't advice on trading or a photograph and fiction story - it isn't one post. The valuable content is not at the post level, it is at the content level where through attraction and consistent delivery, the audience keeps coming back for more and, keeps buying into it. A favorite writer will sell books to their audience on their past deliveries, same with actors and sporting stars. Consistency is valuable - whether you write, act, kick a ball or deliver on Hive.
The most valuable content is the audience in the seats watching.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
