I'm still grappling with the idea of @Cent, at least philosophically.
In technical terms it's brilliant: allowing people to make money from their own content in ways they couldn't before (creating content is work!)

...but I'm always interested in externalities - turning tweets into a market/commodity may end up skewing incentives to a significant degree. Wasn't that the problem with Steemit?

As an economist in the blockchain space, I'm incredibly fascinated by the push to tokenize/commoditize *everything*. Could absolutely increase opportunity for many, but could also skew our interactions with each other to where they're more market-based than authentic.

I'm surely overthinking this, especially if you think of Cent more as paying to "collect" important tweets rather than paying for tweets outright. But it does make me wonder how far we go with all this. But I'm excited to find out.

This also will definitely engage the question going forward of, what constitutes work? If we can get paid for everything, are we always working? Are we never working?
Will we start seeing weird amalgamations of Captial and Labor?

Blockchain expands Economics as a profession.

To add to that, this is really fascinating. The rabbit hole goes deeper ad infinitum. https://twitter.com/niftytime/status/1340700766818844672?s=19

"Money", at the end of the day, is really just a form of social communication, so it could work the other way around too, right?

Money is communication, communication is money.

Speech is trade?

I'm gonna be thinking about this all day lol