I guess I'm assuming mutually beneficial because the client keeps paying. Why would the client keep paying if the client wasn't perceiving some benefit? Granted, this may not apply in quite the same way to this situation, but in general, when I'm paid to write for someone, that person is hiring me because they see a benefit to me writing for them which they are willing to pay for. It does seem like in this case, part of my job is to also look after the client beyond what would normally be expected in a client/writer relationship, like I need to be asking the client: "should you even be paying me?" and "Should I even be working for you in this way?" Now, the system was set up the way it is long before I came on board, so I can't be accused of in some way pulling the wool over the client's eyes. However, maybe I should be "seeing the light" that in reality the client is actually harmed by this relationship, and out of a sense of moral duty, refrain from further "exploiting" the client by no longer publishing any articles.
This is the part where I'm feeling a lot of verbal pressure here in this thread to be altruistic when I'd rather be motivated by self-interest.
I do recognize that this brings up the argument of well, if it isn't me "gaming the system," it will be someone else, so why shouldn't it be me, and that if there is actual exploitation going on, that isn't a valid argument in defense of my actions. But with the more recent posts from UnthinkingBit, I'm thinking that might become irrelevant, as these posts represent the client changing the terms to be even more beneficial to the client--rating writers and so forth. What I truly appreciate about UnthinkingBit is that he doesn't change things in a hurry and carefully considers each new step before implementing it. This also shows that the client is still in control of the relationship; even if I absolutely love the current terms because I'm getting paid so much, when the client makes a change, there isn't going to be a thing I can do about it, other than to reevaluate my own participation. This is the part that convinces me that however much I may be benefiting today, I am not exploiting the client, because the client is empowered to change the relationship at any time, and is feeling quite free to do so. He's just more patient than most
And yes, I recognize that people who buy DVC on the exchange are also motivated by self-interest. This means that in many people's eyes, including traders, DVCs hold value. This is a healthy sign. The trend I see of more people opening businesses which take them in payment is another good sign which will eventually mean it's going to be more expensive for people to buy Devcoins as fewer people will be dumping them. I hope they too are motivated by self-interest.
In the end, I would like to see the client/writer relationship set up to where the benefit is truly mutual (if it's not this way now, then any change towards making it so is good), because to be perfectly honest, I would like to be free to participate where I only need to look out for my own interests and not fret about whether or not the client is truly benefited by me simply doing my job as instructed. In other words, I'm not thrilled with being put in a position where I might be the exploiter, but I can't be responsible for setting someone else's boundaries, only respecting them once they are set by that person.
As for what I do with my earnings, that is dictated by self-interest, but not desperation. I do sell a lot of them for Bitcoins, mainly because I have discovered some good places to put Bitcoins where they can earn return, and so far I have not found those same opportunities for Devcoins. The exception is that on mcxNOW my Devcoins do earn interest, and I will take full advantage of this until mcxNOW pulls the plug. I do stockpile a lot of Devcoins, though. I like to try to take advantage of pumps by having existing high sell orders in place just in case. I also have an opportunity to pay for a service I'm needing in Devcoins so I'm saving up for that as well. In other words, using my earnings to better my life--same as every other person who's ever gotten paid to do anything.
My initial thought when I found this opportunity was to immediately trade out my earnings and run, because I did think surely there is no way this can last. And maybe it can't. But I do now have a vested self-interest in making it last as long as possible, in the sense that I now find it in my best interests to help out with the project in other ways (within my personal limitations) and also do something with all my earnings that I believe will also help the project. Again, the same basic thing I see other Devtome writers doing. This process is a very natural, organic process, part of the development of a healthy economy. My concern in all the criticism leveled at writers, though, is that this process gets stifled to the detriment of everyone.
...Although I personally do tend towards altruism, I believe that an economic system that depends on altruism will not in the long run be sustainable. For it to work in the long run, it has to work just fine when the majority of the participants are for the most part looking out for their own interests. I'm not talking about survival of the fittest or dog eat dog, just people going along trying to better their lives and doing what's best for them while still being generally ethical. The reality is that this is how most people operate, so you want your currency to work for them and still accomplish the overall goals.
I do not personally trend towards altruism. I trend towards maximising returns or potential for returns. Devcoin is not altruistic because it requires purchases to support any non-zero price of dvc offered. I doubt anybody's buying dvc out of altruism.
So this again is where we part company in general understanding. I think it is you and others that are selling your own returns and potential short through a desperation to accrue any immediate gain, to the cost of greater benefit in the medium/long term. Up to you obviously, but such choices do impact the rest of us in a similar manner so it will continue to annoy me - particularly when any stated rationale (mutuality/ignorance) does not remain in line with effects and actions.
You're right that it's no crime etc...it just makes no sense to do so and then defend it from any perceived logical standpoint of mutual benefit. It would make more sense to just take the money and run, or take the money and never say another thing. A lot of people have done that and good luck to them - what they haven't done is to convince themselves of any mutual merit of this and then try to defend it.
If the current system continues there will eventually be no buyers. But if people keep buying devcoins to pay out to a small self-selecting group of recipients then I will have been wrong.
I research and proofread all my work... still a bit scary though! 