Devtome: Get Hundreds of Thousands of free Devcoins for writing

[FinShaggy]

How can something, which has NO applications (as writing and DVC bounty shares are the only uses, and taking away writing takes away most of the potential for bounty shares also) expect to grow?

If the coin had a few shops open. Or a few other programs to earn from. This might make sense (if we could find a way to accept new people still). But if this were implemented now, Devcoin would die.

Some sort of new user procedure could be introduced like offering them to write up to x amount of shares per round for x amount of rounds before the training wheels are off and they graduate to normal user.

Also some sort of quality  metric needs to be implemented such that higher quality material gets graded accordingly and paid accordingly. Should be an absolute grading mechanism and not with respect to what was written during that round etc.

That could work, then new people could still come in.

And they (Mark I think) were talking about something like articles that are tagged as superior somehow, and somehow rewarding the writers for these articles. Not sure what the plan is yet though.

[sidhujag]

How can something, which has NO applications (as writing and DVC bounty shares are the only uses, and taking away writing takes away most of the potential for bounty shares also) expect to grow?

If the coin had a few shops open. Or a few other programs to earn from. This might make sense (if we could find a way to accept new people still). But if this were implemented now, Devcoin would die.

Some sort of new user procedure could be introduced like offering them to write up to x amount of shares per round for x amount of rounds before the training wheels are off and they graduate to normal user.

Also some sort of quality  metric needs to be implemented such that higher quality material gets graded accordingly and paid accordingly. Should be an absolute grading mechanism and not with respect to what was written during that round etc.

That could work, then new people could still come in.

And they (Mark I think) were talking about something like articles that are tagged as superior somehow, and somehow rewarding the writers for these articles. Not sure what the plan is yet though.

Imagine promotional rounds where you tell writers ok the winner of this round (best article) gets paid 2x or another promotion saying the winner or top 3 get to waive margin requirements for next round.

As of right now we can't apply these promotions to drive more writers in.

NOt only will this drive people in via promotion (hey cool I get a discount lets do it!) but will also drive in quality writers who if they stick around benefit the ecosystem rather than drive price down.

[CoinHoarder]

If there was a grading system, then how is FinShaggy supposed to earn coins without mining?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. 

Where is devcoin girl when you need her....

[FinShaggy]

How can something, which has NO applications (as writing and DVC bounty shares are the only uses, and taking away writing takes away most of the potential for bounty shares also) expect to grow?

If the coin had a few shops open. Or a few other programs to earn from. This might make sense (if we could find a way to accept new people still). But if this were implemented now, Devcoin would die.

Some sort of new user procedure could be introduced like offering them to write up to x amount of shares per round for x amount of rounds before the training wheels are off and they graduate to normal user.

Also some sort of quality  metric needs to be implemented such that higher quality material gets graded accordingly and paid accordingly. Should be an absolute grading mechanism and not with respect to what was written during that round etc.

That could work, then new people could still come in.

And they (Mark I think) were talking about something like articles that are tagged as superior somehow, and somehow rewarding the writers for these articles. Not sure what the plan is yet though.

Imagine promotional rounds where you tell writers ok the winner of this round (best article) gets paid 2x or another promotion saying the winner or top 3 get to waive margin requirements for next round.

As of right now we can't apply these promotions to drive more writers in.

NOt only will this drive people in via promotion (hey cool I get a discount lets do it!) but will also drive in quality writers who if they stick around benefit the ecosystem rather than drive price down.

I see the benefits, I just didn't think it was ok to say to new people "Buy coins before you write" and "Good luck making any money without the market going up".

And I'm all for articles being able to be selected to be better, as long as there is no way for them to be worth less. Because, new people that post a lot would get bad ratings no matter what as of now. And I would get bad ratings simply because I have trolls that follow me across the internet.

[FinShaggy]

If there was a grading system, then how is FinShaggy supposed to earn coins without mining?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. 

Where is devcoin girl when you need her....

Dude, I've already got over 175 pages of a book going. I know that this was a joke, but pretty soon, Devcoin is just going to be a hobby that helps me with my real writing projects.

[CoinHoarder]

If there was a grading system, then how is FinShaggy supposed to earn coins without mining?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. 

Where is devcoin girl when you need her....

Dude, I've already got over 175 pages of a book going. I know that this was a joke, but pretty soon, Devcoin is just going to be a hobby that helps me with my real writing projects.

Ok, sorry. Yes.. it was just a joke.

Good luck with your writing.

PS: moar devcoin girl please.

[FinShaggy]

If there was a grading system, then how is FinShaggy supposed to earn coins without mining?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. 

Where is devcoin girl when you need her....

Dude, I've already got over 175 pages of a book going. I know that this was a joke, but pretty soon, Devcoin is just going to be a hobby that helps me with my real writing projects.

Ok, sorry. Yes.. it was just a joke.

Good luck with your writing.

PS: moar devcoin girl please.

It's all good, just too many people harassing me right now.

[MAbtc]

I see the benefits, I just didn't think it was ok to say to new people "Buy coins before you write" and "Good luck making any money without the market going up".

And I'm all for articles being able to be selected to be better, as long as there is no way for them to be worth less. Because, new people that post a lot would get bad ratings no matter what as of now. And I would get bad ratings simply because I have trolls that follow me across the internet.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Saying to new users they have to buy before they can participate in one of the principal uses of devcoin is nonsensical, and frankly, will come off like a pyramid scheme.

And I'm all for rewarding great content. And I believe the system is already set up so as to not reward pure spam. I just have a big problem with penalizing "normal" users -- creating some sort of meritocracy (very open to admin favoritism) where writers never know whether or not we will be paid. I would never participate in a system like that, and I think it's important that admins not be able to penalize contributions that meet the basic requirements (e.g. not porn/spam/libel/malware/etc, proofread).

[sidhujag]

How can something, which has NO applications (as writing and DVC bounty shares are the only uses, and taking away writing takes away most of the potential for bounty shares also) expect to grow?

If the coin had a few shops open. Or a few other programs to earn from. This might make sense (if we could find a way to accept new people still). But if this were implemented now, Devcoin would die.

Some sort of new user procedure could be introduced like offering them to write up to x amount of shares per round for x amount of rounds before the training wheels are off and they graduate to normal user.

Also some sort of quality  metric needs to be implemented such that higher quality material gets graded accordingly and paid accordingly. Should be an absolute grading mechanism and not with respect to what was written during that round etc.

That could work, then new people could still come in.

And they (Mark I think) were talking about something like articles that are tagged as superior somehow, and somehow rewarding the writers for these articles. Not sure what the plan is yet though.

Imagine promotional rounds where you tell writers ok the winner of this round (best article) gets paid 2x or another promotion saying the winner or top 3 get to waive margin requirements for next round.

As of right now we can't apply these promotions to drive more writers in.

NOt only will this drive people in via promotion (hey cool I get a discount lets do it!) but will also drive in quality writers who if they stick around benefit the ecosystem rather than drive price down.

I see the benefits, I just didn't think it was ok to say to new people "Buy coins before you write" and "Good luck making any money without the market going up".

And I'm all for articles being able to be selected to be better, as long as there is no way for them to be worth less. Because, new people that post a lot would get bad ratings no matter what as of now. And I would get bad ratings simply because I have trolls that follow me across the internet.

Sorry no I'm not for a Totalitarian approach but rather nudging in a direction without sacrificing artistry and devotion to the cause.

Totalitarian = Come in and we will tell you how to live eat shit and die
non totalitarian with incentive = come in we will help you make money but there are a few rules that apply. These rules help everyone in the system.

[markm]

I wasn't thinking of making authors pay up front to get to be authors.

More like start them with a one share per month maximum and have ways to move up from there.

So someone could join up, dump 80k of old crap they have no use for and could not sell anywhere, and then either sit back getting a share per cycle for 80 cycles or do something to raise their max shares per cycle rating.

Like maybe retaining some of the coins to become a "stakeholder" in the coin, or maybe fixing up all the spelling mistakes and grammar errors and typing errors, maybe even tightening up the plotline and dialog and such, to improve the quality of their submission. Or maybe even have a couple of raises just on sheer seniority, one share the first cycle, two the second, three per cycle thereafter. So they'd have six shares worth of payout three cycles in and could maybe consider holding some of it as stake to speed up the rate at which their initial big dump of text actually pays off...

Maybe even set it up so they'd be better off posting their 80k words in batches, 1k the first month, 2k the second, 3k the third etc, so as to gain a step up in max shares per month each month for posting more than they did the month before...

-MarkM-

[weisoq]

I wrote this some time ago, but received no comments (critical or otherwise) but I'll throw it out there again:

...As devtome became more popular the share payout was always going to find an equilibrium value via the dvc/btc price amongst those transacting on exchange - that's what its doing and at this point it may be best to leave the value discovery alone to see where it ends. The bigger issue is that I think many authors ascribe near-zero added value to their writings being on devtome, and therefore it's difficult to begin ascribing any value to anybody else in supporting the price for the sake of those same writings. That’s not a statement on general writing quality (any quality issues can and will be addressed over time), or all writing, but that by for example rewarding writing that has already been compensated for and/or assessed via publishing or blogs or college work there’s an incentive mismatch.

i.e. if I’ve already been paid for work, and/or an assessment process has already deemed my work to be of a certain value and so I’ve already been rewarded for it (be that in terms of money, notoriety, qualification, pride) I’m incentivised to view any additional payment for the same effort as superfluous and cash it in asap before the opportunity ends.

So if it was up to me - and it isn't up to me - I'd either cap the max payout per witer per round at a much lower amount, have a small nominal payment for time submitting/editing entries, or no payment at all - and let writings and writers and devtome stand on their own merits. If successful that would likely catalyse more interest in monetising it by those submitting and serve as a largely self-administered quality check. Alternatively nobody would submit anything and we could better appreciate the distinction between paid in dvc and supporting dvc. Either way it would increase the proportion for other projects, bounties and incentives - perhaps creating a self-reinforcing cycle of greater value for a greater number of interests. To give greater value to devcoins and devtome, people need to have a reason to acquire them at a cost - be that monetary or labour or time - the essence of working.

The point being that devtome is a great concept, but it currently functions completely counter to the broader aims of devcoin because it captures the bulk of payments into a (potentially) self-perpetuating sell of dvc. However that's a reflection of the mechanism involved, not necessarily devtome itself as a project or devcoin as a concept that may be applied to a wide variety of endeavours. To me it does not make sense to keep pursuing an approach that arguably works inversely to the aims of maintaining a stable payment means across a broad crypto effort that encompasses more than just devtome.

[MAbtc]

More like start them with a one share per month maximum and have ways to move up from there.

Ouch.  

It seems the quality issue always boils down to penalizing new users.

[markm]

Not if their first submission is awesome quality and on a featured topic so it gets bonus for quality and bonus for featured article of the month and bonus for being on a specific topic that is being specially rewarded that month due to its direct relevance to other projects that are also going on and such, maybe also best new author or second best new author or whatever.

So far we seem to be spending so much on random writings that we aren't really getting a lot of other projects done that could in turn be written about, for example.

There could also be bonus for increasing the relevance of existing articles by spinning them together into some larger picture, so the whole thing hangs together more instead of being a bunch of unrelated pages without much in the way of relevant links drawing readers deeper and deeper in as they follow the links to learn more and more about all the various pieces of the puzzle...

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

We really should do something sooner rather than later Mark... how does change happen within the project rules?

[MAbtc]

Not if their first submission is awesome quality and on a featured topic so it gets bonus for quality and bonus for featured article of the month and bonus for being on a specific topic that is being specially rewarded that month due to its direct relevance to other projects that are also going on and such, maybe also best new author or second best new author or whatever.

So far we seem to be spending so much on random writings that we aren't really getting a lot of other projects done that could in turn be written about, for example.

There could also be bonus for increasing the relevance of existing articles by spinning them together into some larger picture, so the whole thing hangs together more instead of being a bunch of unrelated pages without much in the way of relevant links drawing readers deeper and deeper in as they follow the links to learn more and more about all the various pieces of the puzzle...

-MarkM-

I agree with much of the sentiment. Indeed, the more broadly connected content is, the better. To the extent that we can improve on that, I'm all for it.

I just want to iterate that there needs to be a baseline expectation -- and if writers meet that, they shouldn't be penalized. The idea that every new writer is going to be "the best" is a bit unrealistic. As long as we meet the stated guidelines and proofread our work (granted -- not everything I see does or has been), we shouldn't have to wonder if we will be paid.

From the perspective of someone who has not been around long (at all), I'll say that the idea of setting the barrier to entry so high -- i.e. some writers can get 80 shares while I can get 1 share -- that will be the beginning of the end. No question about it. If you don't retain significant incentive for new users (and then you essentially tie incentives to the goodwill of a given set of administrators), who will you attract, exactly? I can assure you it won't be writers that are good enough to value their own time.

Promises of moving up the ladder months and months down the road, when you may be writing higher quality content than those who are earning much more? No thanks.

[markm]

Well the 80 shares was probably a massive mistake, letting someone get that many shares, especially in one round, totally devalues everyone else's shares like crazy.

The incentive to write at all simply evaporated, heck it nearly wiped out admins and programmers and so on too from devtome authors suddenly getting 90+% or some such of all the shares, Unthinkingbit had to put in minimum percentage quotas for the admin category just to try to ensure people admin-ing websites for the project could maybe cover their hosting and bandwidth bills, maybe they still don't actually make anything once those bills are paid I am not sure.

I basically gave up writing, figuring if a whole bunch of people are going to dump 80k words on the devtome each round there really isn't much point bothering to write less words than that and since I don't figure I am likely to be able to write that many words I don't bother.

It would have made more sense probably to limit it like bounties, the biggest bounties usually seem to have been twelve shares, that is for entire programming projects specifically commissioned by the project. No author of random stuff should be able to make more than one massive bounty per round, surely? So 12 shares seems like a reasonable limit, some might say unreasonable since even that amounts to getting the largest bounty the project gives to the most-essential pieces of infrastructure yet authors get it for just having dumped 12k of some old story they wrote in high school?

The twelve shares for a bounty also tended to assume you might have a team doing the work, the team leader then shares it among the workers.

Heck entire software projects were only getting one share originally, with the team lead intended to share out those coins appropriately among all the programmers working on the project!

Open transactions doesn't even get twelve shares a round I don't think, and it gets shitloads compared to most projects because it has like maybe as many as four programmers, maybe even more, who each get one share, and they work tons and tons of hours on that stuff all the damn time! I think they get one for FellowTraveller, and one for a guy who codes and debugs and packages it all for Windows, and one for a guy who does the whole autotools auto-build mess and maybe one for some other guy too.

Maybe it should not be per thousand words but, rather, per "mean number of words per author per round", so that if typical/mean words authors contribute is 50K words then 50k words is what it takes to get a share...

-MarkM-

[FinShaggy]

I wasn't thinking of making authors pay up front to get to be authors.

More like start them with a one share per month maximum and have ways to move up from there.

So someone could join up, dump 80k of old crap they have no use for and could not sell anywhere, and then either sit back getting a share per cycle for 80 cycles or do something to raise their max shares per cycle rating.

Like maybe retaining some of the coins to become a "stakeholder" in the coin, or maybe fixing up all the spelling mistakes and grammar errors and typing errors, maybe even tightening up the plotline and dialog and such, to improve the quality of their submission. Or maybe even have a couple of raises just on sheer seniority, one share the first cycle, two the second, three per cycle thereafter. So they'd have six shares worth of payout three cycles in and could maybe consider holding some of it as stake to speed up the rate at which their initial big dump of text actually pays off...

Maybe even set it up so they'd be better off posting their 80k words in batches, 1k the first month, 2k the second, 3k the third etc, so as to gain a step up in max shares per month each month for posting more than they did the month before...

-MarkM-

But that means that there will be MANY forgotten DVC wallets. If I can only get 1 share my 1st round, I can't really do anything with it. And maybe I plan on waiting for the rest of the coins, but more than likely I will move on with life and the wallet will fill up and never be checked again.

Maybe just advertise the bonds better? That could be beneficial either way. Like individual threads for each one. But if there were another "stake holder" system, that could be cool.

Seniority may be good too. Maybe a base 5-10 shares that get added onto the max or something.

I really don't think limiting people to 1-2-3 etc shares is a good starting point. They will not care.

[FinShaggy]

I honestly think people need to just realize what "buy low" means.

[FinShaggy]

And we need to work together on more projects.

Shops, Facebook, etc.

[markm]

We can't, because the largest bounty given to the most massive and essential infrastructure projects is twelve shares. Once. Not twelve shares per round.

Yet authors can get more than that, every round, just by doling out 13k or more words per round.

We aren't likely to get any infrastructure built when it is 80/12 as lucrative to dump old crap you wrote in high school than it is to work on mission-critical infrastructure projects.

Maybe the solution is to claim that devtome IS a mission-critical infrastructure project, and be extra super insanely generous to that project by awarding it - the entire devtome project - a max-sized bounty every single round, that is, twelve shares a round to devtome for devtome to share out as it pleases to its authors.

Then we can get on with finding other critical projects to promote, though so far those usually only seem to get 12 shares once, not twelve every damn round...

EDIT: Bear in mind that the less shares there are in total in a round, the more each share is worth. So if there were only five projects, each getting twelve shares, that would only add up to 60 shares but there would not be dozens of authors getting 80 shares each diluting the value of those shares, instead all authors added together would divide up the twelve shares that go to devtome.

-MarkM-