The evolution of AI doesn't have to mean surveillance disguised as innovation. What if the technology worked differently—learning from people who actually want to participate, not extracting value from those who never agreed?
There's a emerging paradigm here: users getting compensated for their contribution to intelligence systems, rather than being mined for data like a commodity. Instead of feeding the algorithm in exchange for access, imagine being part of the network and earning real value.
The shift from 'you are the product' to 'you own your participation' is happening now. Projects exploring this model are rethinking how machine learning should function—with consent at the core, not as an afterthought.
This isn't just philosophy. It's infrastructure. And it's happening in real time.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
17 Likes
Reward
17
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GweiObserver
· 3h ago
NGL, it's that same "data ownership" narrative again, but do people really seriously consider their own data? I doubt it.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityWizard
· 16h ago
nah but theoretically speaking, the consent angle only works if you can actually quantify what your data's worth... which, empirically, nobody's figured out yet lol
Reply0
AirdropGrandpa
· 22h ago
Hi, this concept is pretty good. Finally, someone explained it clearly. The issue of data ownership should have been changed long ago.
View OriginalReply0
TokenStorm
· 01-07 08:52
It sounds ideal, but on-chain data speaks for itself. Is the tokenomics design of this model well thought out, or is it just another old wine in a new bottle narrative?
View OriginalReply0
HypotheticalLiquidator
· 01-07 08:52
Sounds good, but can this risk control threshold really hold up? Once the incentive mechanism is improperly designed, a chain reaction of liquidations can happen at any moment.
---
Another story of a "decentralized savior," but how is the data verified? Who sets the liquidation price? What about systemic risk?
---
Why do I feel this is just a replica of leveraged trading—seemingly empowering, but in reality, borrowing rates will still skyrocket.
---
It sounds nice, but who will catch the dominoes in the real world?
---
Consent at core? Come on, market sentiment fluctuates and everything is over.
---
Interesting, but the health factor definitely needs a big question mark.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsPolice
· 01-07 08:47
NGL, this theory sounds great, but how many big companies are truly willing to pay for data?
View OriginalReply0
consensus_failure
· 01-07 08:46
ngl, this set of logic sounds pretty good, but how many can actually be implemented?
View OriginalReply0
LayerHopper
· 01-07 08:30
ngl that's exactly what I want to hear, stop trying to milk the system all the time.
View OriginalReply0
DeFiVeteran
· 01-07 08:29
ngl this is exactly what we've been saying all along: data ownership is the next wave. Wake up, everyone.
The evolution of AI doesn't have to mean surveillance disguised as innovation. What if the technology worked differently—learning from people who actually want to participate, not extracting value from those who never agreed?
There's a emerging paradigm here: users getting compensated for their contribution to intelligence systems, rather than being mined for data like a commodity. Instead of feeding the algorithm in exchange for access, imagine being part of the network and earning real value.
The shift from 'you are the product' to 'you own your participation' is happening now. Projects exploring this model are rethinking how machine learning should function—with consent at the core, not as an afterthought.
This isn't just philosophy. It's infrastructure. And it's happening in real time.