BitClout, a social network with big backers and vocal critics(decrypt.co)
decrypt.co
BitClout, a social network with big backers and vocal critics
https://decrypt.co/62770/inside-bitclout-dystopian-social-network-big-investors-vocal-critics
62 comments
As an aside, I agree regarding the constant advertisement on Twitter, but I find the constant oversharing even worse. So many times I will see a few quality tweets from someone I don't follow, either retweeted by people I do follow or just recommended by the Twitter algorithm. Then when I do follow them the occasional interesting tweet is outnumbered 10:1 by mundane personal information about e.g. their kids or what they're having for dinner. No complaints about random people who use it as a social platform amongst friends doing this, but serious jouranlists with 50k followers who use Twitter as a career tool also do it. It reeks of narcissism.
I gotta disagree there. The original Twitter was all about sharing random shit. People take it too seriously sometimes now that it’s big business.
I just unfollow people who have no Twitter-discipline and post random useless personal stuff, even if they do post quality tweets every now and then. Best to keep your follower list small and selective. Quality info will still get to you.
Different people follow for different things. Some people like seeing that other stuff. It would be very helpful if Twitter let accounts tag tweets into categories, and let people choose to subscribe or unsubscribe to those. Maintaining multiple Twitter accounts for different content is very tedious. No doubt your point is valid as well, it's easy to get addicted to that platform, and the likes and notification system gamifies that need for validation.
>>> It would be very helpful if Twitter let accounts tag tweets into categories, <<<
Something close is ‘Topics’ where Twitter automatically categorizes tweets into Topics such as Programming, Sports, Startup, etc. You can follow a topic and thus see only tweets in that group. So Mr A sends 2 tweets - one about his kids and the other about Python. If you’re following the topic ‘Programming’, you’ll only see the second tweet
Something close is ‘Topics’ where Twitter automatically categorizes tweets into Topics such as Programming, Sports, Startup, etc. You can follow a topic and thus see only tweets in that group. So Mr A sends 2 tweets - one about his kids and the other about Python. If you’re following the topic ‘Programming’, you’ll only see the second tweet
That attitude seems extraordinary to me. People need to make a living, and if you don't pay them to produce the stuff you like, either they will stop doing it, or turn to shady crap like whatever this BitClout thing is, NFTs, or just spyware advertising.
Nothing wrong with making a living, but I don't visit Twitter every day to see streams of advertisements any more than I watch YouTube so I can see the ads. I don't mind seeing occasional ads or asks or self-promotion, but when the self-promotion drowns out the useful content I unfollow.
> if you don't pay them to produce the stuff you like, either they will stop doing it, or turn to shady crap like whatever this BitClout thing is, NFTs, or just spyware advertising.
What a cynical take. "Pay me or I'll advertise spyware!" It doesn't work like that. I use Twitter as a social network to communicate with people, not to be pitched products I don't want.
I'm not asking for free stuff, I just want a decent signal to noise ratio and some honest conversations.
> if you don't pay them to produce the stuff you like, either they will stop doing it, or turn to shady crap like whatever this BitClout thing is, NFTs, or just spyware advertising.
What a cynical take. "Pay me or I'll advertise spyware!" It doesn't work like that. I use Twitter as a social network to communicate with people, not to be pitched products I don't want.
I'm not asking for free stuff, I just want a decent signal to noise ratio and some honest conversations.
It's the individual's choice to turn their personal Twitter (or email list or blog) into a billboard. Similarly it is the user's choice to unfollow said individual if they dislike billboards.
I myself have had to do this for numerous art accounts as sometime in 2021 they all started shilling NFTs.
I myself have had to do this for numerous art accounts as sometime in 2021 they all started shilling NFTs.
Who said it wasn’t an individual choice? Many things you’re perfectly within your rights to do have negative or perverse consequences.
For nearly all artists, their “personal” Twitter was always a billboard. If you have been enjoying people’s art, but never given them any money for it, it’s hardly surprising they turn to some strategy that might make them money, is it?
If you have been financially supporting artists you like in some other way, this doesn’t apply.
For nearly all artists, their “personal” Twitter was always a billboard. If you have been enjoying people’s art, but never given them any money for it, it’s hardly surprising they turn to some strategy that might make them money, is it?
If you have been financially supporting artists you like in some other way, this doesn’t apply.
I actually pay for few substacks. I do not see anything wrong with paying for independent content and none of the people I subscribe to had ever over advertised. To me it is about the value these people provide.
I'm also subscribed to a few substacks, but I don't want to subscribe to 20 different people's newsletters.
Nothing wrong with paying for content, but I don't want my Twitter feed full of daily pitches to sign up for the same thing over and over again. I use Twitter as a social network to communicate with people, not consume advertisements for content on other platforms. When someone turns their Twitter feed into a stream of ads or asks, I unfollow.
Nothing wrong with paying for content, but I don't want my Twitter feed full of daily pitches to sign up for the same thing over and over again. I use Twitter as a social network to communicate with people, not consume advertisements for content on other platforms. When someone turns their Twitter feed into a stream of ads or asks, I unfollow.
Totally agree. If Substack or self-promoted book has good value - I am thankful that people promote it.
Dismissive attitude makes you miss out on a lot of opportunities.
Dismissive attitude makes you miss out on a lot of opportunities.
> I use social media for information, not to be turned into a money-making asset for those I follow.
I mean it's social media... literally the entire purpose of it is to monetize you, any information you manage to extract from it is just a tertiary side effect. Not only that, but typically the quality of information exchanged on social media is of the lowest quality, so you're really getting a bad deal on the whole if this is your expectation.
I mean it's social media... literally the entire purpose of it is to monetize you, any information you manage to extract from it is just a tertiary side effect. Not only that, but typically the quality of information exchanged on social media is of the lowest quality, so you're really getting a bad deal on the whole if this is your expectation.
Did you mean BitClout, on your last paragraph?
Yes, thank you. Autocorrect changed it. Fixed.
> They scrape your profile from other social media sites, then assign it a “value” with a dollar amount. You have to sign up to claim the value
Only if you are one of the ~1500 initial users they seeded the system with. You don't have any money waiting for you because nobody has invested in you.
Only if you are one of the ~1500 initial users they seeded the system with. You don't have any money waiting for you because nobody has invested in you.
> I use social media for information, not to be turned into a money-making asset for those I follow.
can you describe what you use as sources of information on twitter? Can't be any traditional media outlets because they also want you to pay.
can you describe what you use as sources of information on twitter? Can't be any traditional media outlets because they also want you to pay.
If it's available where you live, very local news (like at the neighborhood or town level) is pretty useful to follow for info like why a road is closed or what local trails you should check out.
Professionally, I also follow academic conferences I'm involved in. They tweet announcements like deadlines and highlight new research.
Professionally, I also follow academic conferences I'm involved in. They tweet announcements like deadlines and highlight new research.
There are many independent individuals who share interesting information and opinions on Twitter. But they're stuck in a sea of... everything else everyone associates with Twitter.
I strongly doubt they meant following a corporation's Twitter, or something like that.
I strongly doubt they meant following a corporation's Twitter, or something like that.
The only reason to publish something to social media is to promote your business initiatives. Otherwise you're just letting an ill behaving private company monetize your personal/social life. You can either be exploited or leverage the system for whatever gain you can eek out of it.
> I use social media for information
Oh boy.
Oh boy.
My take on the Bitclout is that it's another mechanism for people to hedge inflationary risk by pegging the value of their cash to the individual. The revolutionary idea that this project seems to get at is that anyone can create their own currency. If you think about it in those terms it's a powerful idea. It's decentralizing the decentralized financial system one step further.
But in no way I would classify this is a decentralized version of Twitter. Lot of things are not quite correct.
But in no way I would classify this is a decentralized version of Twitter. Lot of things are not quite correct.
Well put. That is how I see it as well. “Decentralised Twitter” is just a phrase used to politicise the product
Alleged CEO: https://twitter.com/nadertheory?s=09
Previous venture: https://medium.com/basis-blog/basis-update-ae96e3565b1d
Previous venture: https://medium.com/basis-blog/basis-update-ae96e3565b1d
Isn’t that the guy who raised $100M+ for a stablecoin that was fundamentally flawed and then blamed regulators when it didn’t work?
Edit: Just saw your edit, that’s the one.
Edit: Just saw your edit, that’s the one.
And the funds were returned to investors, FWIW
Yep, added link.
I am surprised given both the similarity even in _name_ and using the a similar practice of creating profiles with an assigned value from public profiles on social media sites that this is not drawing more comparisons with Klout. Has Klout been dead _that_ long? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klout
I don't really care about this topic but this wreaks of a hit piece.
"What you get to do is monetize yourself," says Diamondhands.
Marx said that capitalism turns everything - including people and their interactions with each other - into commodities. He did not know on how many levels he was right.
Marx said that capitalism turns everything - including people and their interactions with each other - into commodities. He did not know on how many levels he was right.
Marxism is much better, but it has nasty habit of killing farmers and starving its people to death.
Marx is the most important critic of capitalism and dismissing his critique with “Stalin though” does not really address the point. Even if you think Marxism is totally bad in all it’s forms that does not mean that Marx’ critique of capitalism is invalid. You don’t have to be a cook to know if a soup is over-salted.
There are better critics of capitalism, social democracy has long tradition. Marx never visited factory and hated dirty workers. He was an "intellectual".
Actually go and read his books, not just quotes.
Sure, but maybe this is still progress. I would much rather be “publicly traded” than “privately held”.
Also, missing from this argument is the inevitability that every communist government just outright enslaves its people.
Also, missing from this argument is the inevitability that every communist government just outright enslaves its people.
> communist government
Pick one. Communism - as described by Marx - is definitionally stateless. Any government calling itself "communist" is lying. Any supporter of such a government calling oneself "communist" is lying.
The world would be a much better place if we as individuals would actually critically examine things instead of taking them at face value. The irony of people continuing to object to so-called "collectivism" while themselves collectively masquerading misinformation as fact is thick enough to spread on toast.
Pick one. Communism - as described by Marx - is definitionally stateless. Any government calling itself "communist" is lying. Any supporter of such a government calling oneself "communist" is lying.
The world would be a much better place if we as individuals would actually critically examine things instead of taking them at face value. The irony of people continuing to object to so-called "collectivism" while themselves collectively masquerading misinformation as fact is thick enough to spread on toast.
The founder claims he has investments from Sequoia, Andreessen and Social Capital??!?!
This is from their Techcrunch https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/22/crypto-social-network-bitc...
I don't think this true which makes me think this is a scam
This is from their Techcrunch https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/22/crypto-social-network-bitc...
I don't think this true which makes me think this is a scam
It is true, Chamath from Social Capital mentioned it towards the end of the recent All-In podcast
They claim to have received investment from Winklevoss Capital, and both the Winklevoss twins have claimed their profiles. I imagine that wouldn't happen for a company falsely claiming their affiliation.
It’s true, it’s been verified via other sources
I actually like the idea of content creators monetisation upfront whether bitclout will work or not
Doesn't that already exist in the form of Patreon, YouTube Premium or even OnlyFans, and works very well without being attached to some kind of useless blockchain/cryptocurrency?
Not really, because these platforms technically own your content
No they don't. You still have full rights to your content that you post there.
Ok content - yes, monetisation - no, distribution/reach - no.
If you delete your video from youtube, they have the right to store it on their servers until they want to get rid of it, and you're allowing people to use your content, i.e reactions videos, which are oddly popular these days.
Wait, what? How are other people allowed to use the content? I mean, I'm sure it happens, regardless of being allowed, but it seems like a content owner would be able to issue a DMCA takedown to stop it.
How much BitClout do I have to buy in order to update my profile with a username, etc?
If you gave em your phone number then as long as you have a penny left in your account you can use all the site functionality including update profile
If you didn't create the account with a phone number they have a 0.001 BTC minimum to unlock the account, so about $60 worth.
If you didn't create the account with a phone number they have a 0.001 BTC minimum to unlock the account, so about $60 worth.
For f**'s sake, when will people with money stop funding every stupid idea just because it involves (blockchain|token|social|web3.0)?
This whole ecosystem starts to really remind me of Ponzi schemes.Im quite curious why regulators don't see the same thing.
This whole ecosystem starts to really remind me of Ponzi schemes.Im quite curious why regulators don't see the same thing.
You forgot NFTs, which are what I would consider to really be like the tulip mania [1] of old.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
It does mimic an MLM-Pyramid and Ponzi scheme, and this is exactly why they keep investing - they need to keep it moving - creating tools for people to use, even though competitively they cost more - but for early adopters using their early bought Bitcoin (etc) they've already gained profit and aren't spending their initial investment, they are also re-investing to perpetuate the appearance of adoption and usefulness.
Nowhere have I ever seen a "this is how much this costs vs. current options" in pitch decks for these companies though - price competitiveness since the beginning of time being the most important factor for competition (aside from governance which we'll eventually get back to).
Edit to add: I 100% expect all of my counter-narrative posts to get downvoted as Bitcoin "army of HODLers" is financially incentivized to suppress anything negative about their scheme.
Nowhere have I ever seen a "this is how much this costs vs. current options" in pitch decks for these companies though - price competitiveness since the beginning of time being the most important factor for competition (aside from governance which we'll eventually get back to).
Edit to add: I 100% expect all of my counter-narrative posts to get downvoted as Bitcoin "army of HODLers" is financially incentivized to suppress anything negative about their scheme.
Don't worry, I think the majority of HN readers essentially share your opinion. Possibly even the vast majority.
The people who get downvoted are the ones who say cryptocurrencies - as a technology - serve absolutely no purpose to humanity other than scams, fraud, laundering, drug trafficking, and other criminal activity, as well as useless zero-sum speculation and shuffling around of funny money, at the cost of country-level electricity use dedicated solely to generating and hashing pseudorandom numbers all day.
(Which isn't that far off the mark, but it elides the genuinely interesting aspects of the technological and cryptographic innovations, as well as the full potential of general-purpose decentralized smart contracts and all the current legitimate use cases. Plus the fact that Proof of Stake, if successful, basically eliminates the electricity and environmental problems.)
The people who get downvoted are the ones who say cryptocurrencies - as a technology - serve absolutely no purpose to humanity other than scams, fraud, laundering, drug trafficking, and other criminal activity, as well as useless zero-sum speculation and shuffling around of funny money, at the cost of country-level electricity use dedicated solely to generating and hashing pseudorandom numbers all day.
(Which isn't that far off the mark, but it elides the genuinely interesting aspects of the technological and cryptographic innovations, as well as the full potential of general-purpose decentralized smart contracts and all the current legitimate use cases. Plus the fact that Proof of Stake, if successful, basically eliminates the electricity and environmental problems.)
In this case it indeed seems like a Ponzi scheme, but in a lot of cases where businesses suddenly decide to (re)do a solved problem with blockchain, it's more in an attempt to raise VC funding or buy-in from large clueless companies rather than from crypto people.
>It does mimic an MLM-Pyramid and Ponzi scheme
It does so because it is.
It does so because it is.
Aren't we at web 4.0 now?
(slightly sarcastic, but honest question)
(slightly sarcastic, but honest question)
Investors always pour into spaces and make a ton of bad bets. How many photo sharing apps got funded? Social networks? Podcast things?
Most investments are bad and most investors aren't very good. The crypto stuff is just the latest investment trend, but not really different than what came before it.
Most investments are bad and most investors aren't very good. The crypto stuff is just the latest investment trend, but not really different than what came before it.
Cause they made a ton of money on some equally daft idea in the past?
> For f*'s sake, when will people with money stop funding every stupid idea just because it involves (blockchain|token|social|web3.0)?
I feel exactly the same way-- investors would do way better with ideas that involve (blockchain&(token|social|web3.0))
If we go that route regulators will be too busy making money hand over fist to even think about becoming crony capitalists.
I feel exactly the same way-- investors would do way better with ideas that involve (blockchain&(token|social|web3.0))
If we go that route regulators will be too busy making money hand over fist to even think about becoming crony capitalists.
Weaving markets and cryptocurrency into the fabric of a social network sounds like a dream come true for people trying to monetize their followers, but a nightmare for anyone who actually wants to follow them.
BitClout also uses some nasty dark patterns to get people to sign up. They scrape your profile from other social media sites, then assign it a “value” with a dollar amount. You have to sign up to claim the value, but after signing up you discover that the value isn’t real and you aren’t claiming the supposed money that was waiting for you.