After describing my first impression of Trybe.One in my last blog, I would like to give you a more detailed impression of the Reward System today.
We start with a quote that introduces the monetization of content on Trybe.One. The quote is from the whitepaper:
"2. Monetization of content
For content producers, it’s hard to monetize their content. There is so much free content on the web that most people are unwilling to pay for content unless it’s packaged into either a book or a course, which are time-consuming to create. Most sites that allow users to post articles either don’t monetize the content, or monetize it with ads but don’t share the revenue with the content producers (Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin are all prime examples). Trybe will provide an easy way to both create and monetize content, while at the same time allowing content creators to keep ownership of their content."
Okay, the message is simple. Content creators have a hard time turning their contributions into money. Stories like shutting down the Youtube rewards come into my head. Trybe.One wants to have the solution to this problem ready. In this respect the platform doesn’t really differ from close competitors. But now let’s take a look at the reward distribution and the way there in detail.
Before you can earn a reward through content, you first have to bring the content to the platform. For this purpose a post is created, which is published with a cover picture in various categories. Unlike Steemit.com or Minds.com, for example, a post is not published directly. It is first given in review, i.e. it is checked and evaluated. This process already requires the 50 TRYBE for creation.
The first review is carried out by a so-called “primary editor”. This is also remunerated for its activity. According to the whitepaper, the primary editor is defined as follows:
"A Primary Editor is someone who has earned at least 20,000 tokens on Trybe, has applied for the role, and has been selected by the curation team. To be accepted as an editor for a certain category, they need to have posted a number of highly rated articles in that category."
In the event that your article survives the review, it will then be published and can be reviewed by other users.
Now it depends on your ratings. There are basically 5 rating possibilities: 1 star | 2 star | 3 star | 4 star | 5 star.
Stars 1 & 2 make sure that you lose tokens.
Star 3 does not change the reward.
Stars 3 & 4 make sure that you get tokens.
Now we know that you can lose tokens and that the ratings are essential.
The whitepaper also gives an exact information about how many tokens a rating currently gives. The following is the key from the whitepaper:
A 5 star rating gives 2 * (tokens_held_by_rater) / 100
A 4 star ratings gives 1 * (tokens_held_by_rater) / 100
A 3 star rating gives no tokens
A 2 star rating subtracts 1 * (tokens_held_by_rater) / 100
A 1 star rating subtracts 2 * (tokens_held_by_rater) / 100
Assuming we have 1000 #Trybes, our A5 rating would give the contributor 20 TRYBE, our A1 rating would give him -20 TRYBE.
Collected scores, linked to the above calculations, result in the total amount of TRYBE that the contributor receives. Since the calculation is linked to the number of TRYBE owned by the assessor, this system is a (partial) stake voting mechanism.
The whitepaper also contains future changes for this system. Reward distribution will in future depend on the advertising intensity of the category in which a contribution was published. Here is a quote from the whitepaper:
Advertising rewards will be distributed to the content creators based on the categories that their content is in, and how much advertising revenue each category produced. For example, if the “Cryptocurrency” category earns 1M TRYBE tokens in a month, then this revenue will be distributed to all those who have created content in that category.
At least this is described in the whitepaper. The remuneration should therefore function according to the same principle as for the evaluation of the contributions. Since I don’t see this function fully implemented yet – at the moment only an up- and downvote is possible – I don’t have to go into it in detail. On the other hand this should be, as described, equal to the above distribution. Thus a very high value should be assigned to the reviews.
#Opinion should perhaps not be called it yet. As I already described yesterday, most of them are first impressions, as well as prototypes of the systems, which we can see on all upcoming platforms, including Trybe.One. This certainly supports my thesis about the early adoption phase.
In principle I think it makes sense that the system is clearly built against spam. Spam is a disgrace for our information high culture. Trybe.One has started an attempt to bring a balance into the quality of the offered content by on the one hand the fee, on the other hand the reviews and the possibility to lose tokens in case of bad ratings.
It remains to be seen to what extent this will prove to be viable in the long term. In addition to the announced changes, there will certainly be a number of other processes that will change the existing functionality.
In principle, as I wrote yesterday, I find the approach interesting and can imagine that it has potential. Trybe.One has to get the problem under control with the ever slower speed.
Even if many don’t like to read these “long” documents, this is always very exciting. In my opinion, I have summarized the most important part of the #Reward #Distribution from the Whitepaper for you and hope this article helps to understand the whole thing.
Please leave me your vote and comment, I am happy about every single one.
#News #Trybe #Minds #Steemit #Social #Crypto #Cryptocurrency #reward #monetize #business #technology #whitepaper #eos #nextgeneration #blockchain #trybe.one #network #social-network