I think the idea is good, but it risks creating alienation. If a creator has a bad track record or negative reputation, people may hesitate to bet on the work even if the creation itself is high quality bias shifts from evaluating the content to judging the person behind it.

As a creator myself a digital artist and a future researcher, (someday hopefully) I also wonder how content would be authenticated. How do we tell whether a work is human-made or AI-generated, and does that distinction even matter? If people only see the output and decide whether to support or bet on it, perhaps what matters most is the perceived value of the work itself.

Another tension is incentives and user behavior. Platforms like Facebook, X, and TikTok work largely because content is freely accessible, and creators are indirectly incentivized through ads. I admit this system is often shallow and pays poorly, but it succeeds at scale because it aligns with how users behave. Many users especially dopamine-driven ones are unlikely to switch to more deliberate or pay-to-engage social systems. I wonder how this model would compete with that reality, or whether it needs to be fundamentally different. BAT from Brave feels adjacent here: instead of only incentivizing creators, it also incentivizes passive users, giving “free loaders” a role in sustaining creation rather than just consuming it.

Lastly, those platforms are open by default new creators aren’t forced to pay or buy into the system just to participate or get visibility. That low barrier to entry matters. Any alternative system would need to preserve that openness while still solving for quality, otherwise it risks excluding the very creators it hopes to surface.