This week we're showcasing our new logo, updates to Web App feeds and UI, and a new way of highlighting NFTs. Let's dive right in 🏊.
In our quest to integrate with the awesomest web3 platforms, we're excited to announce our basic leaderboard for Mirror publications (mirror.yup.io).
We had a blast onboarding to Mirror last week after finishing top 10 in the $WRITE Race. The onboarding experience on Mirror was quite incredible as well.
We noticed that there wasn't any discover page or menu for finding Mirror publications thus far. But we wanted to discover other great publications and thought pieces that were coming out on the platform.
This week we're highlighting our Zora and Foundation integrations, new ways to curate NFTs, and Ethereum wallet sign-up/linking. Let's dive right in 🏊
Foundation is the Crème de la crème 🇫🇷 of NFT art and now you can curate on it. Rate NFTs with the Yup extension, earn rewards and influence for good taste, and follow others' favorites. Curation never looked so good ✨
This was originally posted on blog.yup.io and has been moved here.
TLDR; With the growth of NFTs and digital art, more and more users spend time browsing and curating NFTs. Currently, NFT creators and owners earn money on sale and resale. Yup proposes a new revenue stream for digital art creators AND curators we're calling NFT Curator Rewards. Curators earn YUP for liking and rating NFTs on their favorite platforms. Some of those rewards go to creators/owners, with on-chain attribution.
TLDR; Yup presents a new reward mechanism for social tokens and their holders. By holding certain social tokens, users will have a claim over $YUP rewards given to accounts linked to those specific tokens. We're piloting this with Alex Masmej and the $ALEX token and are looking for other social token holders, leaders, and platforms to work with.
Social tokens are growing at an incredible pace, becoming a $250m market in less than two years. Here are a few different social token types that we have seen come to light during this development:
In 2019, Balaji Srinivasan gave several lectures called Pseudonymous Economy,* *positing that pseudonymous transactions will become as widely prevalent as pseudonymous communications have throughout the rise of the internet. Taking pseudonyms seriously means reconsidering the definition of souls and lives as we know them. If we can embody multiple lives, if we can co-own or pass them on to others, who are we? Who are those lives? Looking through the lens of Balaji’s lecture alongside sociological and philosophical work, we can come to understand that a pseudonymous identity can be a ‘self’ of its own that transcends and is distinct from the individual human ‘self’. This has massive implications for society’s understanding of identity.
Pseudonym, latin for “fake name”, is an identity that is unique in its name and reputation (unlike anonymity) but is not the legal/recognized name of an individual. Since the dawn of the written word, pseudonyms have been quite common. Writers were known to regularly use pseudonyms; George Eliot, Lewis Carroll, George Orwell, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), Stan Lee, and O.Henry are just a few famous examples. Balaji’s lectures on Pseudonymous Economy focus on digital anonymity, technically breaking down how a pseudonymous economy would function, with encrypted personal information and a lineage of attestations.
TL;DR: Users share content they haven't read, with even fewer viewers fact-checking its claims. The incentive structure on most social media drives individuals to share as quickly as possible and place faith in influencers to signal what can be trusted. Twitter and other platforms have attempted to make users feel accountable for what they share. But more can be done to reward and expose positive behavior.
In June, Twitter implemented a new feature in hopes of reducing users’ tendency to blindly share content: a warning prompt prior to retweet. Whenever users attempt to retweet a tweet that contains an article they haven’t opened, Twitter will ask the user if they want to read before retweeting.
This may have some noteworthy effects on user behavior during the pre-share moments of their user experience. Let us explore the social incentives that drive blind sharing, consider the potential success of Twitter’s approach to reduce it, and discuss other possible remedies to the problem.
Misinformation and disinformation (collectively referred to as ‘misinformation’ in this piece) have become a notable hindrance to public discourse. When individuals share content they haven’t reviewed themselves, it increases the likelihood of spreading false facts, misleading information, or unintended messages entirely. Widespread misinformation reduces the knowledge of basic facts, breaks down trust in institutions and traditional media, and corrodes public debate through false equivalencies. It can be used to justify giving a mainstream platform to unfounded claims for the sake of neutrality and it can cause political polarization and unnecessary divisiveness. (Waldman) Many citizens wish to reduce misinformation but act in ways that can expand its reach.
*Originally published on *Hacker Noon
**Should social metrics (such as “likes”) remain public on social media platforms? **There has recently been action by platforms such as Instagram to remove likes from the public eye, meaning only creators would see reactions to their content and no one else. This has been met with substantial support by the online community, but I'll draw on sociologist Goffman’s views on the performed self and Sherry Turkle’s points on authenticity to argue that these metrics of social approval are vital to the sustainable cohesion of online societies. Public likes are critical in order to produce quality interactions between users. This is clear through the lens of sociologist Erving Goffman, who is well known for his arguments on social interactions in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, seeing every interaction as a performance with a stage, actors, and lines of sorts. For the sake of specificity, let us take Instagram as our ‘stage’, imagine the removal of public likes, and pay attention to two of Goffman’s specific points.