You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: WakuCat's View - August 2025
!ask chatgpt
1500 words text + 50 reasons why there is no PoB (proof of brain) on platforms paying for content combined with low education + poverty + wars + dislike for reading and writing.
Below is a roughly 1 500-word analysis followed by fifty concrete reasons why Proof-of-Brain (PoB) has not materialized on many pay-for-content platforms—taking into account low education, poverty, wars, and a general disinterest in reading and writing.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1. Introduction: the promise and the reality of Proof-of-Brain
Proof-of-Brain (PoB) emerged in blockchain communities (notably on Steem) as a system that rewards authors and curators based purely on the perceived intellectual effort and quality of content. In theory, every meaningful contribution—an article, a comment, a constructive vote—generates a token reward proportional to the community’s valuation of that contribution. PoB hinges on three pillars: decentralized governance, transparent voting, and a crypto-economic incentive for genuine engagement.
Yet outside a handful of niche chains, PoB has shown little traction. Platforms that do “pay for content” tend to reward views, clicks, or time-watched rather than the depth of insight or the effort expended. User behavior shifts accordingly: sensationalist clickbait, low-value spam, and AI-generated junk flood these ecosystems. Genuine learning, thoughtful writing, and peer evaluation—cornerstones of PoB—remain marginalized. Why?
2. Platform architecture and tokenomics
Many content-paying platforms are built around advertising revenue rather than community staking. They need eyeballs and ad clicks more than they need curious, educated readers engaging in long-form discussion. Even when tokens exist, they are often inflationary, centralized, or convertible only via cumbersome processes. Without a transparent, community-driven stake-weighting mechanism, voting turns into an arms race of token-buying whales or bots, subverting the meritocratic aspirations of PoB.
3. Low education and digital literacy
In regions struggling with basic literacy, expecting nuanced blogging or in-depth commentary is unrealistic. If a significant portion of your contributor base cannot write coherent paragraphs, judge arguments critically, or navigate web-based editors, PoB collapses. Low digital literacy breeds distrust—users click “like” or “upvote” at random, or rely on sensational headlines rather than content quality. Voting thus becomes noise, not signal.
4. Poverty-driven shortcuts
When individuals live hand-to-mouth, they prioritize quick, reliable income streams. Content platforms that pay per click or per view appeal more than those paying per community-judged contribution. Clickfarms, automated scripts, and churn-and-burn accounts thrive. There’s no incentive to invest time in high-quality writing or peer review when the immediate return on 200 low-value microposts can outstrip that of one well-crafted essay.
5. Disruption by war and conflict
Conflict zones often suffer from damaged infrastructure, intermittent electricity, and restricted internet access. Even where smartphones exist, data costs can be prohibitive. Under such pressure, content platforms are not viewed as venues for intellectual exchange but as distant, unreliable prospects for any meaningful reward. Moreover, trauma and displacement reduce cognitive bandwidth for reading, writing, or token economics.
6. Cultural factors: dislike for reading and writing
In many societies, oral tradition and video content dominate. YouTube, TikTok, and WhatsApp voice notes feel more accessible than text-based platforms. Long-form writing is perceived as elitist or foreign. Platforms requiring paragraphs of analysis or multi-step peer evaluation simply feel cumbersome and out of sync with users’ media consumption habits.
7. The social media attention economy
Our collective attention is treated as a finite resource to be extracted. Low-barrier content—memes, short videos, listicles—eat up most of it. PoB would require slowing down, reading attentively, and thinking critically before voting. In a system that rewards speed and volume, PoB becomes a relic of an earlier internet era.
8. Lack of onboarding and education about PoB
Many platforms never explain to new users why PoB matters or how to participate. Without tutorials, community mentoring, or localized case studies, potential contributors don’t see the point of thoughtful posting. They learn by imitation—and imitation on most public platforms is clickbait.
9. Fragmented crypto communities
Steem’s PoB was always limited by fragmentation: different chains with different token values, varying governance models, and isolated user bases. Attempts to federate PoB across platforms have run aground on incompatible protocols, poor UX, and conflicting economic incentives.
10. Moderation and trust issues
High-value content ecosystems require robust moderation: fact-checking, anti-spam measures, and dispute resolution. Many pay-for-content platforms lack the resources or will to build such systems. The result is a race to the bottom in content quality and a breakdown of trust—essential for any PoB regime to function.
11. Conclusion: why PoB remains aspirational
Proof-of-Brain stands or falls on the premise that communities can collectively assess and reward intellectual effort. But when platforms prioritize speed, views, or raw token speculation; when user bases struggle with literacy, poverty, or conflict; and when cultural habits favor bite-sized media over reflective writing—PoB remains an ideal rather than a reality. To change this, platforms would need to:
• Re-architect token models around staking, long-term holding, and anti-whale measures.
• Invest in localized education, digital-literacy programs, and onboarding.
• Provide reliable, low-cost connectivity and UX for conflict-affected regions.
• Cultivate moderation, fact-checking, and community stewardship.
• Bridge cultural divides by supporting multimodal content but tying rewards to depth and originality.
Absent these structural overhauls, PoB will continue to exist mostly in white papers and blockchain experiments, while the wider web remains dominated by attention-maximizing, low-effort content.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Below: fifty reasons why Proof-of-Brain has not taken hold on most pay-for-content platforms:
1. Overemphasis on view counts rather than community voting.
2. Inflationary token models that dilute individual rewards.
3. Centralized control of token distribution.
4. Poor or nonexistent staking mechanisms to weight votes.
5. Lack of anti-whale measures—large holders dominate rewards.
6. Automated bot armies flooding low-quality posts.
7. Clickfarms generating fake views and engagements.
8. Sparse or ineffective content moderation.
9. No onboarding materials explaining PoB.
10. High barriers to entry for new users (KYC, wallets).
11. Complex UX/UID workflows for posting and voting.
12. Low basic literacy in target markets.
13. Limited or no digital-literacy training available.
14. Poor internet infrastructure (slow, unreliable).
15. High data costs for mobile users.
16. Displacement and instability in war zones.
17. Trauma and stress reducing bandwidth for writing.
18. Priorities on survival tasks over digital creation.
19. Preference for audio/video over text content.
20. Cultural skepticism of written debate.
21. Prevalence of short-form social media habits.
22. Platforms reward length of reading, not quality.
23. Insufficient incentives for long-form research.
24. No reputation system tied to quality metrics.
25. Reputation inflation through self-voting.
26. Reward farming: mass production of trivial posts.
27. AI-generated content swamping human contributions.
28. Lack of timestamped authorship guarantees.
29. No dispute-resolution framework for content disputes.
30. Limited mechanisms to detect plagiarism.
31. Token volatility discouraging long-term engagement.
32. KYC/regulatory hurdles deterring casual users.
33. Language barriers and lack of localization.
34. Education systems that deprioritize expressive writing.
35. Social stigmas around publishing opinions.
36. Peer-pressure to conform to sensationalism.
37. Ad-tech infiltration prioritizing ads over rewards.
38. Absence of micro-grants or scholarships for content creation.
39. Inadequate support for collaborative writing.
40. Lack of academic or expert participation.
41. Broken feedback loops—votes unrewarded if tokens devalue.
42. No integration with mainstream social networks.
43. Incentive misalignment between platform and user.
44. Limited funding for infrastructure and growth.
45. Investor focus on quick profit rather than community health.
46. Geographic concentration of token value (few rich zones).
47. Legal uncertainties around crypto rewards in many countries.
48. Cybersecurity risks scaring away serious contributors.
49. Lack of measurement tools for genuine “brains behind posts.”
50. Entrenched attention-economy norms that resist slow, thoughtful engagement.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In summary, while Proof-of-Brain remains an elegant concept for aligning crypto-economic incentives with intellectual labor, the real-world conditions of platform design, user education, economic hardship, cultural habits, and conflict make its broad adoption exceedingly difficult without major structural reforms.
command: !ask is powered by witness @justyy and his contributions are: https://steemyy.com
More commands are coming!.
!ask currently supports:
default=o4-mini: prefix question with chatgpt, qwen, llama, deepseek, or grok if you like, e.g. !ask deepseek Your Question