I think this has a slightly ironic benefit in practice: by paying out in-kind, as it were, you inherently filter for participants who actually are after the functionality provided by the distributed system and aren't just out to make a quick buck, which leads to a better true believer:huckster ratio. Reminds me of how capitalistic incentives don't always translate to good content: see cooking recipe / other SEO blogspam, or capeshit. Scene respect is the sort of in-kind pseudocurrency that, while not without its own flaws, ime incentivizes better art.
Trackers and crypto are popular because they offer utility to users that you don’t find in centralized systems. You can even see the popularity of trackers shift as centralized services like Netflix appeared and then got worse. Crypto is all about ‘degen gamblers’ but as a result has oodles of cash, that in turn they’ve been spending hand over fist on marketing to get in more greater fools. The problem for crypto is how to square the utility they provide with the ideological mission whilst still managing to maintain momentum when arguably moving to the latter cannibalizes the former.
Interesting. Let me disagree though. As an intangible, unquantifiable pseudocurrency - we’re getting into the realm where currency-as-analogy sounds both pointed and on-topic, but is a somewhat strained analogy - ‘scene respect’ is as corrosive, perverting and uh… pervertible as any other incentive. It breeds quasi-religions, staffed by gurus and followers, blighted by orthodoxies and schisms. All of which the pre- and post-bust cryptoverse has. All of which seem to matter very little when real money arrives, which it may well again.