[tcrow]

This is a problem the Voice.com social platform is attempting to tackle, read more about it here: https://about.voice.com/learn-more/. I'm not affiliated with Voice in anyway, just someone who is eagerly awaiting open registration.

[CobrastanJorji]

It's funny how the ups and downs of evaluating a startup go:

Phase 1: "Okay, it's a Real Names social network, seems probably fine."

Phase 2: "Oh no, some sort of token economy. Well, maybe it--"

Phase 3: "Nevermind, it said the word 'blockchain,' abandon ship, this is doomed."

[heckerhut]

Well you could’ve guessed 3 when reading 2.

[CobrastanJorji]

No, I assumed they'd just store your "points" in a Users table in a relational database, plus a "transactions" table somewhere for history. Going with a blockchain solution is kind of crazy unless you're a blockchain company searching for a use case for your ridiculous--wait, what's this "Copyright © 2021 Block.one" bit at the bottom of their page?

[heckerhut]

You’ll reconsider once you see Twitter transitioning to such a model to circumvent regulation while still trying to capture value.

[Kiro]

Clicked on logo, came to an extremely laggy game where I got Game Over after a couple of seconds. No idea what's going on.

[tcrow]

Ha, cool find! I dunno tho, seems to run well for me.

[cecida]

Meh, social network mixed up with some sort of cryptocurrency bullshit. Hard pass from me.

[kleer001]

Interesting idea. Nothing to stop people being paid to voice another person's or company opinion though.

[tcrow]

You're right, technically there is nothing to prevent that from happening, but I think the idea is that you only get one "Voice", so if you want to align it to something you don't necessarily believe in for the sake of money, then you will have to suffer the consequences of that. Might be a good way to thwart paid attempts at spinning undeserved corporate-positive narratives.