Inflating prices by destroying value

[Radivis (Michael Hrenka)]

@Radivis

Is 1 trillion per year a fair estimate for the economic inefficiency that comes from not selling digital goods at the marginal cost of 0? Possibly. Even if a reputation economy could make these economic domains 1% more effective, that kind of solution would be worth 10 billion $US per year! Even if I only had a 1% chance of making QP, or some other system a success, my contribution would have an expected value of 100 million $US per year to the global economy. And that’s enough reason for me to focus on reputation economy systems, especially since almost nobody else does that.

Huh, it seems I need to dismantle my own argumentation here. There is certainly value in fighting artificial scarcity, but systems like Patreon might be just about as good for doing that than QP:

https://transforum.fractalfuture.net/t/flattr-patreon-crowdfunding-and-quantified-prestige/1076

And Patreon actually exists now and is becoming hugely popular. So, what I am proposing is akin to arguing like

See? The success of Facebook means that there is lots of value in social networks. So, let’s build a better social network, even if the chance of replacing Facebook would be small, it would have a huge value.

The fact that Patreon exists and works is a good sign that a digital abundance economy might be on the way. It’s hard to say whether QP would be better than Patreon or not. QP is not the first system that has the chance to create an effective digital abundance economy. So, it might not be the best idea to use the creation of digital abundance as main selling point of QP.