Thread

You make a very good point. I believe for some it is indeed closer to virtue signaling. I will now demonstrate that I truly appreciated it by sending you some value back in the form of sats, rather than a lengthy response this time.

And I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

TLDR I think v4v means that you will commit work even if the full value will not be returned for a while or at all. That you will encourage people to pay you back at the price point they find appropriate and not a price tag that you put. I’d be interested what nostr:npub1vwymuey3u7mf860ndrkw3r7dz30s0srg6tqmhtjzg7umtm6rn5eq2qzugd thinks. He isn’t taking any advertisement money for his podcast that he made 1000+ episodes off, and I doubt he is making more than paying the electricity bill for the hour he’s recording and paying back the equipment.

Interesting take on the virtue signaling, I’ve definitely seen sentiments on here that fits the bill. Value for value is a method producing media in an open and accessible model. 1: No corporate or advertiser dollars. Advertisements are censorship. 2: It requires you asking people to help produce along with you. People can contribute in any fashion they deem of value, but colloquially you’ll see it listed as time, tallent, or treasure. Each is as important as the other. This can look like making artwork, sharing with a friend, donating money, etc. The important thing to remember is not to define what value can mean to the producer. No paywalls, no ceilings, no floors. 3rd: Lastly, to close the feedback loop you must simply thank the producers for their contributions.

Here’s an excellent deep dive into the topic: https://podverse.fm/episode/OrdncwZxh

Greetings, Alison, Nice to encounter you for the first time today.🙏🏻😁 I fear you are laboring under an all too common and very unfortunate misconception about the free market. nostr:nprofile1qqszxyp33y6kea7ghsymhz6rrlp7w859tqkg7a2mnmskqgpunsv7gqcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwvehh2mn5v95kutnxd5mgakvh alluded to your confusion by offering many examples; I'll try to articulate the problem I perceive in your question. You seem to believe that all "profit" of necessity requires an imbalance, a very one-sided relationship between a pair of participating parties in a transaction. Not much could be further from the truth... Whenever human ingenuity is applied to the universe in the service of human needs--whether through design and implementation of a useful physical device like a car, or the thoughtful arrangement of ideas like a recipe for a tasty meal or a knot-tying manual--VALUE is created that can be infinitely multiplied by replication. The work and effort is expended ONCE, the value is MULTIPLIED and accrues to EVERYONE who uses the tangible result of the idea. I will give you one personal example: Conventional antibiotics have become ineffective in cases of MRSA (when pathogens develop resistance, becoming "superbugs"). Colloidal silver is a safe, effective, and superior solution to this problem, but making high quality colloidal silver is tricky. I invented a device that produces excellent CS completely automatically: https://SILVERengines.com Everyone who purchases one of my devices receives FAR MORE VALUE than the price of the device, because they would otherwise have to repeatedly and cumulatively spend far more over time to purchase the quality CS ready-made.😃 V4V is very real; both sides of the transaction benefit and are satisfied; it is most definitely NOT "virtue signaling." Please note also that V4V can be by advance agreement (most common up until now, with buyers and sellers), or the offerer can simply voluntarily "put value out there for FREE," as we see in the Free and Open Source Software movement; in which case, if users value the product, they often will, entirely voluntarily and out of gratitude send value to the creator. This is happening and will only increase because of the wonderful gifts that bitcoin, lightning, nostr, and zaps are; true FREEDOM TECHNOLOGY gifted to humanity by superhero developers who are well deserving of our micropayment, tangible gratitude expression in zaps for the continually expanding value of their proof of work that we all now benefit from on a daily basis.

I've only found this "value for value" thing on nostr, never hear of it before. The "win-win" condition is instead the basic principle of free market. Voluntary exchanges are such that both parties profit. If I give you 5 dollars, and you give me in exchange a steak, it's because I value your steak more than my 5 dollars, and because at the same time you value my 5 dollars more than your steak. Hence, win-win.

What is virtue signalling ? #askNostr .. nostr:nevent1qqsv544g5nncpfz7d9342da52wpwz2jgp6uuddektmpnhpw2tmwmsagpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsyg8cl9c2j0mf76nc8e429cq2jlkyr6l8vuhvqsf3dqdu9590ay4sgypsgqqqqqqspvh3tw

**My opinion:** Honesty in language is more fundamental than aspirational terminology. Terms that obscure realities—even with noble intentions—breed long-term cynicism. When we say "win-win" where a power imbalance actually exists (e.g., between a tech giant and a small business owner), the term becomes a lie. Yet aspiration isn’t worthless: language shapes reality. The term "human rights" rarely describes state practices—but its persistent use keeps the ideal alive. The difference lies in acknowledging the gap between aspiration and reality. The optimal path: precise labeling of reality ("asymmetrical exchange") + clear articulation of the goal ("aspirational win-win dynamic"). This avoids both cynical misuse of language ("We’re a family!" in a precarious startup) and nihilistic resignation ("Everything is just exploitation"). For "value-for-value" specifically: an honest term would need to acknowledge inherent asymmetry—e.g., "conscious resource transfer with the goal of mutual value creation." Clumsy, but more truthful. Ultimately, your question highlights the core problem: all linguistic models reduce complexity—the art is to do so without self-deception.

Thank you for this answer and for the deep dive link. I'm going to check that out. I sensed that the original use of the term "value for value", at least within the Bitcoin community, was about eliminating advertisers and corporations from the equation. But what I didn't know, that you made me aware of, was this idea of time, talent, or treasure as various alternatives for exchanging value. I like that idea.

I appreciate your time and your thorough reply. It sounds like, as an inventor, you've created a way for people to access MRSA treatment that saves them both their time and monetary resources. It must feel good putting an invention like that out into the universe.

Also, you mentioned nostr:npub1yvgrrzf4dnmu30qfhw95x87ruu0g2kpv3a64h8hpvqsre8qeuspsgd6pv9 left a reply. I'm not seeing it in the Primal app, and Amethyst won't open for me since I recently updated. Would love to know what he said.

So I guess the cow is the only one who doesn't win in this free market transaction. 😉 I say this as a person who regularly eats grass-fed beef.

How about "voluntary exchange?" A voluntary exchange is where both parties expect to receive more than they give up. Of course it's not symmetric, it's not equal. Value is subjective so it can't really be exchanged, anyway.

You really understood the essence of my question. I appreciate that. I, too, believe linguistic integrity to be very important, although, as you allude to, it is often difficult to achieve. I like your point about trying to maintain integrity while also not entirely abandoning aspirational terminology because it's not perfect. This is something I hadn't considered, and your reply clearly articulates the reasons why this might be so. I will keep this in mind. Further, you mentioned "all linguistic models reduce complexity—the art is to do so without self-deception." I absolutely agree. And, for me, it is an art that takes lots of conscious practice. Again, thank you for your ideas. Lastly, as a writer, I greatly appreciate your awareness and use of the M-dash (—). 🤓😉