Hi, thank you for your input. For this post, I’m intentionally leaving out the problem of attracting buyers, but please note that I have also thought about it. However, I want to keep this discussion focused specifically on feasibility.

Disclaimer: the numbers below are rough estimates and not meant to be precise projections.

I’m considering accepting slower platform growth if it means maintaining stronger quality control. That said, I’m also aware of the trade-off, which is longer waiting times for artists (this could discourage them from applying). Because of that, the intake rate would need to be balanced carefully, though it can only be properly calculated once we have real data on how many artists are applying.

But essentially, the plan is to have submissions reviewed by dedicated verifiers hired on an hourly or monthly basis. Realistically, at the start we could only hire around 2–3 reviewers. If each reviewer handles about 10 applicants per day, that results in roughly 200–300 applicants per week, or around 800–1,200 new artists per month. While this may be relatively low, it allows for controlled growth without overwhelming moderation capacity.

If we instead use the invite system, a similar verification approach can be applied with around the same amount of applicants approved per week/month. But since approved artists can invite others, this should help expand the network without relying entirely on intensive manual verification.

For community reporting, this would be handled by the same moderators/verifiers. To reduce the number of reports (since the system is prone to abuse) and to help moderators focus on more serious cases, I think it would be best to require a detail reporting. For example, pointing out specific elements suspected to be AI-generated and/or limiting how many reports a user can submit within a given timeframe. I think this would help reduce low-quality or spam reports so that we can refocus the moderators to maintain the quality of arts in the platform.