You didn't get my point at all... Reputation is what matters. Not money. If reputation can be bought / transferred... well, this is a flaw to me.
Comparison with steemit? I don't see the point. Steem maybe, but not steemit in any case. But remember, Steem is not a platform for science. So why comparing apples with pears?
You may be good in economics, I am no one to judge that (and I have never done it). What is clear to me is that your vision of the world of science is quite far from reality. And if you read carefully my messages, this is what I was pointing out. I don't criticize your model, I am just saying it does not apply to the world of science.
In which case, I'd say that your opinion is in the far minority.
Well if you think so... Not my problem.
PS: you didn't answer any of my question. I asked you to convince me to use your platform. You didn't even try to.
We've interviewed many scientists. Some value prestige, some value money, and some value both (some don't care about either one).
We shouldn't paint all scientists with a single brush. Also, if you think reputation is important, then you'll absolutely love our platform.
We are an accounting system for reputation (basically, we quantify/tokenize it). Also, as I mentioned earlier in our comments, we are going to limit the amount of reputation a scientist can purchase.
In other words, they will need to earn it from their peers. We are mimicking how the real world works. The only thing we're changing is that we are removing the middleman. Everything else will be the same.
P.S. It's important to put yourself in the shoes of younger scientists. You may be a senior scientist, in which case, you may have an easier time acquiring funding or reputability from your peers. Younger scientists don't have that luxury and value money very much in order to kickstart their research.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit