Recently, Musicoin adopted a controversial modification to its blockchain, nicknamed “UBI” or Universal Basic Income.” In this scheme, Musicoin miners would now subsidize the playing of Musicoin so that all listening on the platform would be free. Formerly, users had to have Musicoins already to play music on the system. This was a controversial move for the world’s first blockchain-enabled streaming site. Reddit, Steemit, and even Musicoin’s Slack channel was rife with debate on the merits of the system. Most detractors claimed that the model was unsustainable, that the free plays would eventually encumber the system and more resembled a Socialist implementation of blockchain technology. DJ Deadly Buda of The Hard Data got an exclusive interview with Musicoin’s founder, Isaac Mao, to address these issues and explain the rationale behind the UBI scheme.
This interview was uploaded to D-Tube first! And all 14-plus minutes are here to watch. In this interview, Isaac Mao seems to introduce a new concept to the blockchain, which Deadly Buda calls, “Proof of Play” where the user intelligence is adding to the Proof of Work ordinarily done by crypto mining. Also revealed is the precise reason the term “Universal Basic Income” was chosen.
music should always be free for everybody forever because as an artists myself I make music for everybody to hear and enjoy, not to get paid, if I wanted that I just sold it to people who try to fake things as a dj
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a free to make mi scheme not a free to listen one. Though it is also free to listen? Am I understanding?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @theharddata! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDownvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting; I never believed in pay-per-play since in the end this would become too expensive for the listener when the listeners needed to pay for it. Spotify and other streaming services are in the end much less expensive and those models are around and will stay around. Yes, artists do not get paid, or at least get paid a very small amount. The question one can ask: "What is it music artists have to do to get paid?". This could be selling their music on media like vinyl, CD, or digitally. One can also say: an artist shall get paid when performing live somewhere, as a singer, as a DJ or something. The whole thing with selling music on media, without performing basically, became on industry on its own; for obvious reasons! When selling a product in a crowded market, a lot of marketing and all needs to be put into building the artist brand, and pushing the whatever album the artists wants to sell. And for obvious reasons that part of the product selling became expensive therefore leaving the artist with little money. With digital music sellers, like iTunes, Beatport etc the fee to the artists increased quite a bit; But at the same time, a lot more music is offered increasing competition. And yes, people do also pirate music, ie copy without paying for it, but one can also ask the question if we would have no digital way of selling music, would we know many of the artists we know now? As in many of the artistic segments whether it be painters, sculpturists and also musicians, the top of the pyramid in its segment gets all the attention and receives the largest part of the total amount of money paid to the musicians. I'm not saying that is the right way, but that is how it works in a free society, in a capitalistic system we live in. One can create something top level with highest quality, but when the art is not sold as a business, no one will notice it and the artist will not sell anything, from the art itself to getting gigs and shows.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a revolution and will destroy the old order. We are in a new era...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It has that potential, but the proof is not there yet. Take Steemit for instance, it copies the real life model, a very few have all the funds and power, a very few receive most of the daily distributed Steem. The short tail of earners and power holders at Steemit is even shorter (in relative terms) then in real life. This gives us proof it will not revolutionise the world, not how it is implemented and evolving at the moment. Things needs to change drastically in how rewards are distributed. And what couts for Steemit, also counts for other platforms, like Musicoin, Viuwly, LBRY, Sola, Channels etc etc.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit