I built a decentralized Advertising Network protocol on Nostr
by nostr:nprofile1qqst046alygq9n8u6v3szcfswtr59g80zahdatfw784f7yeejzjsuzg52h8dt in ~nostr
696 sats and 2 comments so far
Discussion
I’m not sure what problem this solves? AFAIKT the end user doesn’t gain any control … and the app displaying ads remains in the crosshairs of both parties, as an entity “trusted” to provide quality services. Trustlesness has not been resolved.
Nostr apps should be client-side, so the user gains as much control as the app's UI allows. For example, an app could choose to show only ads from npubs you follow or have interacted with. The advertiser has almost no control,they can only choose to decline an offer. I see this as more akin to a satogram for Nostr apps.
Client side or whatever makes no difference for trustlesness to the end user. Even the legacy paradigm puts apps (not advertisers) in control of ad placement. This is not a solution. In fact, as long as an app’s profit model includes advertising, it is inherently disincentivized to put control of ad placement in the hands of the end user.
There MAY be a trustless solution for voluntary ad reads, that benefits all three parties while keeping the end user in control of their own experience, but this is not it. AFAIKT
If your client profiles you against your will, you can just use a different client. If you can't do that, then your app is not a nostr client.
I don’t think I ever claimed this was about trustlessness, it can be, but the core idea is interoperability and matching (not only placement) without relying on a black-box ad network.
If you use a centralized app that only integrates Nostr for "cypherpunk points", it will likely still profile you to select the best ads and inform advertisers to get better bids.
On the other hand, if you use a proper client app that you download and control, it might show less targeted ads with lower bids, but it won’t profile you.
The point is: both of these use cases can still make use of this model.
I appreciate that you’ve put a lot of work into this project … but I still don’t understand what problem it solves for?
You’ve “nostrfied” the legacy ad model, allowing transactions to be more transparent. This does not ad any value for the end user or for the other two parties involved. You have not put the end user in control, and there is no incentive for apps or advertisers to change from their old ways … aside from the purple washing of ads now being “nostrfied”.
“Trustlesness” is simply a milestone for measuring the value-add for end users. If a solution does not aim for “trustlesness”, end users will be required to “trust” that the app developers are respecting their sovereignty. In a free market of apps, this “trustfullness” is buffered a bit, but also requires that a healthy market of multiple valid choices exists for the end user to choose from. That’s fine if you assume this.
I come from the mindset that transactions involving money should be trustless, but that’s just me.
The most important oversight in your solution here is that the end user doesn’t get control over or value from this “ad placement” transaction. The “Nostr way”, much more than a technical solution, is one that put users first. This is what I would like to see.
Getting apps on the traditional model to adopt this isn’t a goal of mine. I get why it might seem that way since it’s currently demoed on a website, but it’s actually designed for pure p2p apps and is just a small part of a larger project. You’ll see it demoed in a more fitting context sometime next month. I’d love to hear your thoughts then if you’re interested in following along.
Regarding the value, it might seem a bit unconventional, but I see the ad itself as the value.
These days ads are force feed, and basically everyone runs ad blockers and hate ads. Sure, you can find ways to convince some users by rewarding them with a cut of the revenue or some other benefit, but do you really want your ads to be seen only because the user gets something in return? Or do you want to show your ads because the product you sell is the value for the audience you reach?
> “These days ads are force feed, and basically everyone runs ad blockers and hate ads.”
Your solution does not change this. Users will still be force fed ads and hate it.
> “Or do you want to show your ads because the product you sell is the value for the audience you reach?”
You have no method for determining what the end user might want. This statement is just “purple washing” for advertisers, who should NOT be YOUR audience of concern.
I know you have best intentions, but sounds to me like you’re making shit up in your own head. Prolly best to bounce your ideas off of a team, or present at a local meetup, and be ready to pivot on good feedback.
This has potential, but is NOT nostrific quite yet.
Sorry, i don't have time to convince you or to play games.
It looks like you are interested in this topic, so feel free to send a PR if you come up with anything of value.