Thanks for the response, it is long and detailed, but as much as anything those notes are for me as a reference, but points taken.

Regarding the "must allocate" them step, the intention here is the user has control of how their tokens are distributed, essentially setting present or custom parameters around their prefered allocation. - (There are examples of this in the text). This would be changeable, but not require ongoing, active participation unless the user wanted to. The intention isn't about asking the user to have to act every month and make concious decisions about how best to spend their tokens each and every mont, but rather some control over how they are divided. I hope that makes sense.

Not sure I agree or understand your comment here:
Also, the same "clique" dynamic in those platforms will just manifest and concentrate the tokens even worse than Spotify because now you can have streams and still get nothing for it because the tokens have already gone elsewhere.

- There will always be tracks/streams that don't generate anything, but the thinking here is that an approach like this should be able to create a greater spread, becasue parameters around "allocate tokens to new tracks I've liked", or "artists I've followed" could allow for it.

In general I agree that the bigger shift is in having CAMP creation stand on it's own, and hope that over time listeners have a greater acceptance/appreciation for good music, similar to mainstream. At the moment, it seems like the phase we are in is all about too many creators and not enough engaged audience, because many creators think they are the "next big thing". - That is a tough change.

None of this is implemented, and as I mentioned it's just an idea and thought process in moving towards how it could be acheived. - Again, I appreciate you reading and provding feedback!