Luyao Zhang


2023-12-13 中文 | English

Bodhi: An Experiment to Solve Content Incentivization and Public Goods Funding Problem

The content industry has never been a major industry.

If you look at the Fortune 500, how many of them are content creators? Only 4.

This is weird.

We humans are spiritual beings. Rather than just living in a physical world, we also live in the mental worlds we created for each other: stories, music, films, and games. It’s in the company of these creations that we get through hard times.

The content industry should have become the most significant industry for humanity, but it hasn’t. This is because there are some important issues that need to be resolved, with the two most crucial being: distribution and incentivization.

Distribution’ is how your content reaches its audience. Web2 companies, such as Facebook and TikTok, have solved this quite well, whether through social networks or AI, and they continue to make improvements to their algorithms.

However, ‘incentivization’ remains an unresolved issue. And this is what Bodhi is built for.

The Problem

Incentivization means getting rewards for creating valuable things, whether those rewards are in the form of social approval (views and likes), or financial gain (making money).

People have come up with many ways to make money from their content, like adding sponsorships and selling merchandise in it.

These approaches create a higher barrier, as it requires content creators to be not just creators, but also businessmen.

So, what about ads or paywall, aren’t they good enough?

Let’s consider pornography as an example, due to its universal and easily measurable value. If people can’t make money even from porn, it means our current approach is fundamentally flawed.

Before Onlyfans, creators on Pornhub earned just $0.6 per 1000 views.

Why so low? Because advertisers didn’t want to place ads on porn sites. That’s one of the problems of ads – advertisers select content and audiences. Value to viewers doesn’t always mean value to advertisers.

Later with the subscription-based Onlyfans, creators’ income significantly increased.

However, Onlyfans is not the perfect solution, either. Understanding the limitations of Onlyfans is the key to grasping the problem of content incentivization.

The problem with Onlyfans is: it reduces the value that content creates for the world.

Getting a larger slice of a smaller cake will never be the ultimate solution. The ideal approach should be enlarging the cake and capturing a fair share of it.

Dig Deeper

Behind this problem lies a deeper issue:

Copying information is cost-free, yet our economic system isn’t built for goods with zero marginal cost.

Consider the example of an apple sale: If I sell you an apple for one dollar, I lose an apple but gain a dollar, and you lose a dollar but gain an apple. This is what our economic system was designed for— the exchange of physical goods.

However, the scenario changes when trading information (like articles, music, videos). Information can be replicated endlessly. In such exchanges, a finite valuable resource (money) is traded for something that can be infinitely duplicated at no cost.

This creates an inherent conflict, which is the root of many problems: piracy, the challenge of rewarding creators, and the “shrinking cake” dilemma mentioned earlier.

A New Path

With crypto, the solution space for the incentivization problem expand. A trading model distinct from “buying” could be devised, tackling the issues that traditional economic systems cannot.

By establishing such a model at a fundamental level (a protocol), applications and users can concentrate on their core work without worrying about incentivization.

Let’s return to the problem we aim to solve: incentivizing valuable content.

This problem can be broken down into two sub-questions:

  1. How to Recognize the Value of Content
  2. How to Provide Incentives

How to Recognize the Value of Content

One thing is certain: we cannot measure the value of content by the content itself. The value of content is determined by its consumers.

The same article may seem pointless to one reader but could be a million-dollar inspiration to another; a how to video might be trivial to one viewer but crucial to another.

This is similar to search engines. The value of a page is not about how often keywords appear, but how many other pages refer to it.

Thus we can conclude:

The protocol doesn’t need to know what the content is. It measures value through consumer behavior.

How to Provide Incentives

First, let’s consider what won’t work under a crypto protocol:

Any paywall (pay to view) is infeasible.

Why is this the case?

When you build an economic mechanism on the blockchain that runs perpetually, where should its corresponding content be stored?

If it’s in a centralized server, it means it could disappear or become invalid at any time, rendering the economic mechanism meaningless. It’s like investing in a company whose products and itself could vanish from the earth at any time, which doesn’t make sense.

Instead, content should be in a place that is permanently accessible, i.e., on the blockchain. Blockchains like Arweave, designed for storage, can accomplish this task well.

However, content on the blockchain is inevitably public.

If you want to add a paywall for a public thing, you have to encrypt it. But where does the decryption process take place? If it’s managed by a centralized server, its failure means the content becomes invalid, no different from direct hosting on a centralized server. If it’s decrypted through blockchain mechanisms, it essentially remains public.

So, the “paywall” is not only inefficient economically, but also infeasible technically.

By the way, when we examine content on the blockchain, we find it has two characteristics: anyone can access it (non-excludability), and your access doesn’t affect others’ access (non-rivalry).

This is exactly the definition of public goods. That’s why the content incentivization problem is so challenging, as it is fundamentally a public goods funding problem, a dilemma that humanity has struggled with for thousands of years.

Bodhi as an experiment

Bodhi is an experiment to solve the problem of content incentivization.

Instead of relying on ads or paywall, Bodhi turns anything you create into an asset, like a mini-company.

People can buy and sell its shares directly with Bodhi. Share prices automatically increase when people buy, and decrease when they sell.

As the creator, you own the initial share and profit as its value increases.

Plus, every time someone trades shares of your content, you receive a portion of the transaction as a fee.

From a technical perspective, Bodhi stores content on Arweave, turning each Arweave ID into an ERC1155 asset. As users purchase, the token is minted more, and its price follows a quadratic curve based on the supply volume.

From a financial perspective, Bodhi provides liquidity to long-tail assets. Since the protocol acts as the trading counterparty, liquidity is maintained even when there’s only a single buyer for an asset.

Where does Bodhi come from

I’ve had the idea for many years, but my confidence in it came from a sudden realization:

For the toughest problems, the answers may not lie in entities, but in the void (in our minds).

Things that exist only in our minds are often the most influential and vibrant. This is the greatness of Bitcoin, which isn’t always easy to recognize.

Moreover, people often think of Meme and Ponzi as insignificant or even evil. But the two have one thing in common: they exist only in our minds and can be very powerful incentives for human beings. My intuition tells me Meme and Ponzi are underrated and might hold the key to public goods funding problem.

Bodhi embodies this very insight.

Future

As an experiment, even if Bodhi doesn’t work as expected, it will still offer valuable insights for future protocols.

But if it works, we will unlock a lot of interesting stuff.

Since Bodhi has no protocol fee, anyone can build any type of protocol on top of it, and charge a fee if they want.

Here’re some possible ones:

Now that you have a general understanding of what Bodhi is, to give you a deeper experience of it, this post itself is the very first asset on Bodhi.

Try trading it.


2023-12-12

前几天(12/8)把菩提(Bodhi)的合约部署到主网了,主要是我想在坐飞机前把事情弄完。

结果今天搜索时意外地发现,那天居然是佛教的 Bodhi Day, 是佛陀开悟成道的日子。

这也太巧了。


2023-12-10

手表一直在震

我半睡半醒时一直在想我手表怎么回事

是不是坏了

“好烦”

直到我妈走进我的屋子,打开灯,说该起床了

我才想起来,

那是我设的闹铃,要赶飞机

那一瞬间我突然意识到

生命中的某些响声

“好烦”

很可能是某个我们尚未想起来的、重要的声音


2023-12-07

做的东西快要发布了,我很激动,有时睡到一半就醒了。

我忽然理解了生孩子可能是什么感觉。

对我来说就像一种 “他出生了,我可以去死了” 的感觉。

仿佛我过去的三十年最重要的意义就是孕育这个东西,一切都指向了这个东西。

这是一种很奇妙的感觉。


2023-11-29

Not Giving a Fuck 的品质

想选一个便宜又长久可靠的地方部署我的协议,但发现大部分 Layer 2 都不符合这个要求。而且,不仅是技术上,从情感上,他们也没有能吸引我。

这么说可能有点奇怪,但我觉得那些 L2 普遍缺少一种 “王者之气”

从他们身上,我感受到了一种内在的恐惧和不安,渴望用户,渴望项目,同时担忧竞争对手。它们似乎并没有继承到 Bitcoin 和 Ethereum 的品质 —— Not giving a fuck 也是一种品质。

有时候你需要这样一种品质。当你走了一条路,即使只有你一个人在那走,你也可以很坦然地走着,只有这样才有人愿意走你走的这条路。


2023-11-15

看到一些需要安装 SDK 才能用的协议,太扯淡了,好的协议只看 Etherscan 也能搞明白发生了什么。


2023-11-12

理解简单

很偶然的,逛了一会关于 Unix 设计哲学的文章,看到一个很有趣的东西。

我们都知道接口简单很重要。

但事实上 Unix 的设计哲学中,实现的简单和接口的简单同样重要,而且这种简单性比系统的任何其他属性(正确性、一致性和完整性)都要重要。1 2

这很奇怪。

我不知道为什么这种简单性那么重要,它们是如何起作用的。

直到我读到下面这段话:

尽管 UNIX 系统引入了许多创新的程序和技术,但没有任何单一的程序或想法可以使其运行良好。相反,使其有效的是编程方法,一种使用计算机的哲学。尽管这种哲学不能用一句话来写下来,但其核心思想是,系统的力量更多地来自于程序之间的关系,而不是程序本身。许多 UNIX 程序单独做一些非常微不足道的事情,但是,与其他程序结合起来,就成为通用且有用的工具。

Even though the UNIX system introduces a number of innovative programs and techniques, no single program or idea makes it work well. Instead, what makes it effective is the approach to programming, a philosophy of using the computer. Although that philosophy can’t be written down in a single sentence, at its heart is the idea that the power of a system comes more from the relationships among programs than from the programs themselves. Many UNIX programs do quite trivial things in isolation, but, combined with other programs, become general and useful tools.

The Unix Programming Environment, Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike

也就是说,系统的力量更多来自于程序间的关系,而不是程序本身。

也就是说,联系是更重要的。

这就解释了,为什么实现和接口都很简单,是一个非常重要的原则,因为那会使程序间的相互关系变得简单。

接口的简单,使得程序易于被调用;而实现的简单,不仅使它更可靠,也使程序本身易于被其他人理解,只有理解了,才会与其他程序结合。


来自 2023/12/5 的补充: 朋友向我推荐了《能量,性,自杀》中的 “细菌为何如此简单” 章节,我大受震撼,和本文讲的事情很像。我应该另写一篇记录下来,但是最近太忙,没有时间了。


2023-11-08

奇妙的梦

做了个奇妙的梦。

其中有一段是这样的,一个有点像冯小刚的人,闯进一个人家。那人家经常做一些法事,用一个铁浴盆似的容器,献祭一些肉之类的东西。

冯小刚来,说你这不行,要健康一点,然后给他全换换成了蔬菜水果。那人看到都傻眼了。

画面切换到几千年前。好像是印第安原始部落,也是一个好像冯小刚的人,他们在做某种祈神的仪式。

之前都能求到肉,这次求来一堆蔬菜水果。

把他们气坏了。


2023-10-28

看《Diablo》之父 David Brevik 访谈

看完波斯王子的 访谈 后,我又看了 Diablo 之父、北方暴雪的创始人 David Brevik 的 访谈,也很有趣。

也有两件事让我印象深刻。


一个是他一直想做 Diablo,跟很多投资人和公司 pitch 过 Diablo 的想法,大家一听是个 RPG 游戏,都马上没兴趣了,因为当时所有人都认为,RPG 游戏已经衰落,以后人们不会玩 RPG 游戏了(1994 年)。

这个事情让我很震撼,因为我们知道的几乎所有经典 RPG 游戏都是在那以后诞生的,而那会的人却认为 RPG 游戏已经到头了。如果他们可笑的话,那今天觉得某个游戏类型到头了的人们,也是同样可笑的(比如很多人都觉得 MMORPG 到头了)。


另一个是从回合制到即时战斗的转变。

当时北方暴雪在做 Diablo,南方暴雪在做魔兽争霸。南方因为一直做即时战略游戏,他们给北方暴雪的建议是把 Diablo 从回合制改成即时战斗,那样可能会更好玩。

创造 Diablo 的这哥们就觉得很被冒犯,对他来说,回合制的紧张感是他做这个游戏的初心,这怎么能丢呢,搞成即时制后,乐趣不都没了吗。

然而,他们团队内部搞了个投票,结果大部分人都支持改成即时制。他很无语,决定自己改个即时战斗版本出来,告诉大家这真的不好玩。

于是他周五一个人留在办公室里加班改代码,很快就整了个 demo 出来,结果自己把自己震撼到了,点怪、砍怪、掉宝物,就这么简单的过程,他连续玩了一个小时,因为实在是太好玩了

等到大家周一上班的时候,他已经把整个游戏都改成即时战斗的了。

这个事情有意思的地方在于,做出来体验它,要比想象中的感受更真实。即使你 100% 确定一个东西要这样,不要那样,那也不一定是你真实的感受。做出来,体验到,才是真实的。


2023-10-28

看《波斯王子》之父 Jordan Mechner 访谈

看了一个波斯王子的开发历程的 访谈,很有趣。

有几个事情让我印象深刻,

一个是,他在开发过程中的情绪感受,我太有体会了,一会感觉这是杰作,一会又感觉这会是一坨屎,来回横跳;时不时遇到难题,觉得要过不去了…… 就是这种感觉。后来人们看到的波斯王子,那么丝滑和有趣,实际上克服了重重困难的做出来的。


另一个是,波斯王子第一版是为 Apple II 开发的,他做了两年时间,还没发布,自己已经急得不行了;但与此同时,Apple II 这个机器正在衰落,有各种新的、其他品牌的、性能更好的机器出现,他就有点痛苦,因为如果切换过去的话,会消耗更多时间,但继续在 Apple II 上做,可能到时候就没人玩了。

最后他决定回归初心,他选择继续在 Apple II 上专心把最初想做的东西都做出来。

后来发布后,确实因为平台过时,而销量一般,但因为游戏本身很精彩,它随后被移植到了各种平台上,包括各种游戏机和 PC 机,成为了经典 IP。


还有一个是 Shadow Man 的设计,堪称经典。

由于 Apple II 的内存只有 48KB,所有的动画、音效、游戏全部都要放进这一点点空间里,根本没有多余的地方来放敌人和战斗。

最后他用了一个很巧妙的方法,创造了一个和主人公长得一样(这样比较省内存)、但是是黑色的人,叫 Shadow Man。

它是主人公照镜子时,从镜子里出来的。

当你和他战斗时,每次攻击他,你自己都会掉血;

而当你把剑收起来时,他也会把剑收起来;

你走向他,他也会走你,你们合二为一,变成一个人,所有 Shadow Man 曾经从你这边偷走的生命值,都会在那一刻回来。

shadow man in Prince of Persia


2023-10-23

忽然意识到,

定义一个东西的不是它有的部分,

更应该是它没有的部分。

汤里参了屎,要比汤没盛满更糟糕。


2023-10-22

做产品就像怀孩子,怀孩子容易,生孩子可就太难了。我已经怀了10个月了,还没生出来

最开始觉得他生出来一定是个天才,但随着时间过去就觉得如果能生出来,是个傻逼也没关系。


2023-10-17

几周前给 Mac 版微信提了个建议,没想到今天更新后,那个功能就出现了,让我大为震撼。

这让我想起许多年前用多看阅读时的情形。我很多次反馈希望他们增加朗读速度,但几年里从未得到回应。后来我被迫使用微信读书,提出了同样的反馈,短短几天后,新版本上就出现了更快的朗读速度选项。

你问多看是如何衰落的,他们内部大概会说对手更有资源。但对我来说,仅仅是微信读书更在意他们的产品和用户而已。


2023-10-15

时间的正确用法

有那么一瞬间,我忽然领悟到,或许没有时间概念才是对时间正确的用法。

你穿了一双新鞋,去和朋友玩,结果你整个一天,注意力都在这双鞋子上。你担心它有没有弄脏,有没有被人看到,却忘了你们今天玩了啥。

时间就像这个鞋子,如果你一直在注意它,担心它不够用,不停做着计划,想着过去,想着未来,那你就注意不到真正的内容物了。

有点讽刺的是,“时间是稀缺的” 这种观点,或许恰恰导致了对时间真正的浪费。


2023-10-15

很偶然地在 Academia 上看了一篇论文

我惊叹于这个网站的漂亮,我已经很久没有看到如此简单的呈现内容的网站了。

真是叫人惊叹。


来自 2023/12/7 的补充:今天去看时,页面已经变得乱糟糟了,shit。


2023-10-13

Hayden 写了篇谈无偿损失的帖子,很有意思。

我自己从中get到的一点(未必是作者的原意)是,当你做了个很新很新的东西,想要介绍给大众时,保持它的简单很重要

如果你想做一些体验上的改进,但代价是增加其复杂性,那至少在这个阶段,这个改动可能是不必要的。


2023-10-04

昨天晚上和女友在楼下吃烤串。

喝了点啤酒,不知道为什么,我沉默了一会,问她,你外婆是个怎样的人。

在那之前,我们很少聊到她外婆。

她就和我讲了一些外婆的故事,很有趣。

结果刚吃完饭没多久,她妈妈发来消息,说外婆过世了。


2023-09-28

标题

很久以前我把博客迁移到这,一个原因是之前那个太卡了,另一个原因是我不想写标题。

标题是一种总结,它迫使你去理性思考,但这会打断你的感受。而且,有时我只想写一两句话(因为这就是想法的全部),这个时候再给它一个类似长度的标题,看起来会非常奇怪。

Email 的标题也常让我觉得奇怪。古人写信是没有标题的,发明 Email 协议的那个人,somehow 觉得信件应该有个标题,于是 80 亿人每次写信时都要绞尽脑汁写一个标题。我觉得发明协议的那个人是有责任的。

我甚至觉得,今天即时通讯的量远大于 Email,有一部分(可能是大部分)原因是 Email 要写那个操蛋的标题。


2023-09-23 中文 | English

By chance, I came across an article from ‘07, discussing why iPhone would fail. There’s a section goes like this:

…the iPhone is going to fail because its design is fundamentally flawed. The designers and technophiles who encouraged development of the iPhone have fallen into the trap of all overreaching hardware and software designers; thinking that their users are like themselves. As I expound in great detail in my book Why Software Sucks (Addison-Wesley, 2006) your user is not you. The iPhone’s designers have forgotten this fundamental law of the universe. The market will severely punish them for doing so.

This serves as a hilariously counterexample to my feelings from a couple of days ago (only make what you want).

Besides the article being amusing, the comments below are very interesting. You can see how fiercely the users are rebutting him, calling him stupid. The users see far more clearly than him because users are the ones who are using and feeling, not analyzing with their brains like the author.

One guy mentioned that he had used all Nokia and BlackBerry devices, and their browsers were almost unusable, Apple was the first one to make it usable:

This is where Apple is fundamentally different. It’s not about features; it’s about simplicity and focusing on the things that you want to make work.

There is a reason why the iPhone has a camera but won’t let you take video (I don’t know what it is – but they decided to skip on that). Most Nokia’s with camera’s can take movie clips now. …

iPhone skimped on a lot of features when compared to equally priced Nokia’s and Sony Ericsson’s – but ultimately it’s the whole package that counts - Steve Jobs will never let a product out of the door that has a browser that works mediocre at best regardless how good the hardware is. That is the price that you pay when you buy Apple.

There was also another user comment that somewhat moved me (not sure why):

I work in IT. I had my first iPhone support call yesterday. I asked the user what they thought of it as I looked up how to set an SMTP port–add a colon after the server name–and got this response:

“This is probably the coolest thing I have ever owned.”


2023-09-22

朋友给我发了一个尼尔盖曼的视频,他说对于创作,你需要比你觉得舒适的程度更坦诚一点,那种感觉就好像光着身子走在大街上的感觉一样。