Thread

Replies (7)

Great deep thinking on this. Some ideas come to my mind after watching, which are more surface level: 1. What does the world look like if the end state is all information being free? I think Aaron Schwartz talked about this. I wonder how close bitcoin and nostr can get us to this? 2. It’s difficult to assess just how much value information will provide to you until you actually consume it. It’s similar to physical consumer products, except that information is often a one-time use. This conundrum with information as a product is best suited when consumers can consume it first and then pay for its value afterward, but this is not a good business model, even if the target demographic is righteous and giving.
🛡️
↩ replying to Corban
Great points. Two thoughts… On free information: There’s a difference between “free as in freedom” (accessible, uncensored) and “free as in zero cost.” Nostr gives us the former, Bitcoin enables voluntary compensation for the latter. Aaron Swartz fought institutional gatekeeping, not creator compensation. Value for value actually enables his vision because creators can publish openly without intermediaries while still getting paid directly. On the experience goods problem: You’re right, it’s hard to assess value before consumption. But Nostr isn’t optimizing for maximum revenue extraction like traditional business models. It’s trying to create sustainable equilibrium where enough people reciprocate enough of the time that creators can justify continuing. It’s about building a culture of reciprocity, not perfecting a business model. The real test is whether enough of us actually believe in it to make it work.
Stellar. Awesome to have this perspective spelled out concisely. Honestly I’m grateful for yourself and others here on Nostr pushing the community forward. It’s just an empty protocol without us. Value only gets traded by us. Choose to participate or watch it evaporate.