[endgame]

It's also a way of doing leaderless agreement about distributed platforms in low-trust environments. I'm no blockchain fanatic, bit ISTM that a decentralised discussion board could require the spending of tokens to make posts. The market should hopefully make the tokens of desirable communities more expensive, which discourages cheap, low-effort posts. AFAICT, before blockchain you could have decentralisation or paid posting but not both.

[lev99]

I cannot envision myself joining a community like the one you described unless the utility of the community was very high. I do not think that paid posting will improve the average utility of a community, but I am open to examples showing I am incorrect.

The best publications pay people to write for them, not the other way around.

[endgame]

I honestly don't know, it's just an idea that's been kicking around in my head. If posting is cheap but spamming is expensive, then you might get better standards. If the forum becomes valuable then you might be able to reward the people who make it great? Except StackOverflow tried that with rep, and locked in all sorts of broken feedback loops.

If the forumtokens fluctuate wildly in value it would probably kill the forum too, particularly if the only way to get them was through the market. I can't think of any way to algorithmically deal out tokens to posters that doesn't reward at least one of: multiple accounts, spamming, or writing outrage bait.

[Qworg]

If the average utility is calculated as ideas by they who have the most money, then you're golden.

I agree completely - why would paid posting do anything but create a chilling effect on anyone but the wealthy?