A personal story
I just got awarded a prize, for the second time, for my submission in a writing challenge organized by Kiwi News. As someone who hasn’t invested considerable time or energy into cultivating a follower base and rarely disseminates content, it’s remarkable to see what one can accomplish with a bit of a push from a community like Kiwi News.
Upon finalizing my article, submitting, and sharing it, I got a whole lot of mentions and reposts, which boosted the number of views substantially, to levels beyond what I usually get when I post.
Combining the motivation to craft a decent article with the network effects of the community instilled me with great confidence, which was further boosted when I found out I got a prize.
It’s not only the competition and the prizes, but knowing that when I submit something, there’s a chance my post will be upvoted and boosted within the community and outwards across various social media channels.
This realization led me to appreciate that the value of online communities such as Kiwi News is substantial for individuals like myself who cherish high-quality content and occasionally invest energy into articulating their thoughts. The community helps amplify their voice, catalyzing the creation of high-value content and magnifying its impact across the ecosystem.
Is there truly no viable way to monetise this value?
As soon as we broach the subject of monetising content, we encounter serious challenges. Free content has always possessed immense potential to gain traction, but introducing paywalls, sign-up forms, etc., adds friction that exponentially diminishes its chances of skyrocketing.
Alternative options such as ads are not always sufficient and can yield inconsistent results while decreasing the quality of the service.
Kiwi News is currently navigating the complex landscape of monetization, striving to find an equilibrium that supports sustainable growth while maintaining the integrity of their community. As a NFT-gated platform, the initial cost for onboarded users is a variable revenue source, but it may not be sufficient on its own to fuel long-term expansion. Moreover, some users might be excluded from their service if they’re unwilling to pay the initial cost.
How could such service and the value it provides to community members be monetized in a more predictable and scalable manner?
One thought experiment could involve enabling revenue-sharing with the community, creating a self-reinforcing network effect. Knowing that you can earn while being active in the community could be a significant push for people to contribute even more, increasing both the volume and the quality of the content.
However, tokenizing interactions is a slippery slope. If one receives tokens or points for their contributions, some actors might seek ways to exploit the mechanism. As the community grows, focus could shift from content quality towards clickbait-type submissions. This could devolve into a cat-and-mouse game, where algorithm creators must race against the exploiters – a zero-sum game benefiting no one in the end. Furthermore, releasing a tradable token usually leads to sell pressure from earners, thus decreasing its value in the long run.
If we return to the essence of the value communities like Kiwi provide to the ecosystem, there seems to be a focus on:
- Quality of content and sharing unique perspectives
- Amplifying modest voices that have valuable insights to share
- Weeding off low-quality, low-effort content that hurts the ecosystem
We can therefore conclude that the value is concentrated on enhancing the signal-to-noise in various communities. Who are the main beneficiaries of this value?
- Individuals who care about the community, have unique perspectives to offer, but lack the energy, knowledge, or network to amplify their own voice
- Community founders and investors who wish to maintain high quality in their ecosystem, increasing yield (this includes curators affiliated with the ecosystem)
- Consumers of high-quality curated information seeking to further their understanding, with some potentially becoming investors
Among these categories, consumers, who are typically passive, are the most challenging to monetize.
Project founders and investors are an interesting opportunity, as they benefit directly from the boost their ecosystem receives. Founders of projects providing value in the ecosystem would naturally be interested in compensating quality content directed at their niches. Funding and organizing writing or media contests could be a way to provide capital, which is then directed to the highest quality submissions from participants and the community pool.
Content creators and curators actively engage within the community, but they also sacrifice their time and effort, which can balance out their monetary contribution to a net zero.
The subjective battles: Determining high-quality vs low-quality content
Voting on high-quality content can be controversial. Who decides what constitutes high-quality? Trends on major social networks have repeatedly shown that low-quality content can be amplified just as much as high-quality content if based solely on number of votes and interactions. Social networks have consistently struggled to keep spammy content at bay, suffering from actors paying out incentives to create low-quality content, that promotes their own agenda.
While it is partly subjective, quality is in the eye of the beholder, and therefore it’s the values of the beholder that determine the characteristics of quality. Aligning on values within the community creates a more tightly-woven narrative about what constitutes quality content.
Size matters
When it comes to aligning on values, it’s crucial to consider the size of the community. No global-wide community will ever align on the same values, apart perhaps from basic ones such as “do not kill or harm others”, but even those are “subjective” in some minds. The more a community grows, the less aligned their values will be.
The key here is adjusting the size of the communities so that they can still collectively agree on values that are governing their decisions, including what is “high-quality” or “low-quality” content.
However, introducing the dimension of sizing in communities so that members’ values align also raises the concern about the bubble effect. Once a community has established its values, people will be protective of community’s boundaries, making it harder for others to join and contribute. Additionally, tribalism can occur, where one community pursues the demise of others. Without turning this into a history lesson, we can agree that this could also become a slippery slope. While understanding that values are important to a community, it’s equally important to maintain open borders and welcome outsiders, fostering collaboration and free-flow, as opposed to entitlement and tribalism.
In the long run, communities will find their way
Platforms like Kiwi can be a nurturing ground for aspiring content creators, contributing to the community’s growth. It’s important to understand the negative spirals that a community could enter, where this growth is hindered, and where bad actors are allowed to launder their dirty business, leading to its erosion.
While we have yet to find an ideal business model for high-quality content moderation and community creation, there are ways we can explore the potential of compensating efforts within the community proportionally. A key component of this strategy is not losing sight of the value flows from creators and investors to the community, to consumers and back to creators.
I am optimistic that we will find our way.