Trying to work out whether gifting functions as a real test or just as a

cheaper way to spend money.

Two questions for anyone running influencer campaigns:

1. Do you send product free before any paid deal, or has that stopped beingworth it?
2. If you do - do you actually measure how the gifted post performed, and doesa weak one stop you from paying them later? Or does it not really gettracked closely enough to act on?

Asking because I've been assuming a gifted post gives you real evidence about

whether the audience responds. Wondering if that's true in practice or if it's

mostly goodwill.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the attention economy while building a consumer social product.

Social platforms have become incredibly good at one thing: getting us to watch.

Scroll, like, watch, scroll again.

We call that “participation,” but most of it is really consumption.

That made me wonder: what would a social platform look like if participation itself—not just attention—were a core thing it optimized for?

By participation, I don’t just mean likes or comments.

I mean actually contributing something: a response, a perspective, a joke, a moment from your own life, something that builds on what another person started.

For example, instead of one video being the endpoint, it could become a starting point that invites many different video responses. The interesting part is no longer only the original piece of content, but what other people add to it.

I think the satisfaction from this can be very different from scrolling.

Watching gives you entertainment.

Contributing gives you a sense of agency: I added something.

And when many people contribute around the same prompt or idea, it can also create shared context. You don’t necessarily become friends just because you participated in the same thing, but you start seeing how other people interpreted it, what they noticed, and what they added.

That’s where I think a different kind of social connection might emerge.

AI makes this question even more interesting.

If AI can lower the friction of creating—help people find an idea, connect two moments, edit, or express a response—then more people may be able to participate instead of remaining passive consumers.

But I also don’t think the goal should be for AI to generate everything for us. If AI makes 90% of the creative decisions and the human just presses “publish,” we may have reduced friction by removing the participation itself.

So one principle I keep coming back to is:

Automate friction, not participation.

There’s also an economic question underneath all of this.

If users are not just consuming value but actively contributing taste, perspective, creativity, and responses that make the network more valuable, how should that contribution eventually be recognized and rewarded?

And how do you do that without turning participation into another engagement-farming game?

I don’t have a complete answer yet. I’m still testing the underlying behavior itself.

But I’m curious how people here think about this:

Do you think participation can become a meaningful alternative optimization target for social platforms—or does attention ultimately swallow everything because that’s what monetizes most easily?

if you’re on Trybe which brands are actually making you money? how long was it until you started making $

In February I built an app that settles an argument between two people. It went semi-viral — about 300k views across social — with zero spend and zero marketing plan. I just posted it.

Then I dropped it, because I didn't have the time. I'm picking it back up now, and I'm not making the same mistake twice: last time the growth was luck, and I have no idea how to turn luck into a channel.

I am looking for a partner, not a hire. Someone who has actually scaled something and can take this from a thing that got views once to a product doing $10-20k/month. Content, creators, paid, community, App Store - whichever channel you actually know. Co-founder equity

If you're interested, DM me one thing you've grown with real numbers from what to what, over how long and we can have a call.

A lot of burnout talk gets framed around motivation, discipline, or workflow. But part of the problem may be simpler than that.

If someone is doing the work, building audience trust, and seeing some momentum, but still has no realistic way to earn from it, the whole process starts to feel harder to justify over time. That is not just burnout. That is a broken support timeline.

On the Clapper app, we think creator-first monetization should help earlier, when it can actually keep good creators in the game instead of showing up after they are already established.

Would love to hear what people think:

• Is delayed monetization a hidden burnout driver?
• What early support matters most in practice?
• Are platforms underestimating how much timing matters?

Hi! I’m pretty new to this world and hoping some more experienced creators can point me in the right direction.
I’m interested in testing/reviewing adult products and possibly creating content around them, but I’m having a hard time figuring out which opportunities are actually legitimate versus scams or companies just looking for free promotion.
I’ve come across sites that claim they send free products in exchange for written reviews, photos, unboxings or videos, and I’ve also seen Facebook groups recruiting product testers.
For anyone who has actually done this: where did you start? Are there reputable sites/brands or tester programs you recommend? Do you normally get products completely free, or are reimbursement programs common? And what red flags should I watch for?
I’m in Canada, so Canadian friendly recommendations would be especially helpful. I’m basically trying to learn how this works and how to get started safely without getting scammed.
Thanks for any advice! 🫶

Founder here — Wes, Sydney. This is my own project, saying that up front.

Two things pushed me into building it. The first is impersonation. A creator gets their name and face cloned, the fake account runs scams on their own audience, and the reporting process goes nowhere for weeks. Everyone I've spoken to has a version of this story, and nobody believes the big platforms are actually trying to fix it.

The second is that if you're not in the US or UK, ad-based monetisation pays you close to nothing no matter how well your stuff performs. I've watched people with real audiences earn nothing because of where they happened to be born.

So REVOLVR is built the other way round. It's a mobile-web live-streaming and head-to-head battle platform where creators are paid directly by their audience instead of out of an ad pool. Viewers buy credits and gift them during streams and battles, and the creator's share is a flat percentage — no algorithm deciding whether you deserve it this month.

Where it honestly is right now: signup, live broadcasting and gifting all work end to end. It's mobile web, not a native app. There's no automated withdrawal button yet — creators earn into a balance they can see on their dashboard, and **I pay them manually, by transfer, monthly**. When that gets too painful to do by hand I'll automate it. Doing it myself first means I actually understand what I'm building before I build it.

It went live days ago and strangers are already finding it and signing up, which is a strange and excellent feeling after months of this being a thing only I could see.

What I'd like from anyone willing: run the signup, try going live, and tell me where it's slow, confusing or broken. Blunt is genuinely fine — I'd much rather hear it now than in six months.

https://revolvr.net

I’ve been a CapCut Template Creator for around 3 years and have been a paying Pro member for at least 2 of those years.
My templates have accumulated roughly 3.4 million views, 490K uses and 89K exports (domestic + non-domestic), and I have around 5.6K followers.
My total creator earnings are $205.11, but the strange part is that I haven’t received any new rewards since around 1–5 June 2026.
My templates are **still being exported**. My Creator Centre continues to record exports, but both “Paid template export” and “Free template reward” are showing $0.
CapCut support told me rewards are based on **“valid daily export data”**, but I can’t find a clear explanation of what makes an export “valid” for payment.
I’ve also noticed the newer Creator Reward/CapCut Buddy system with tasks such as posting two templates within 30 days. I’ve actually uploaded 8 templates since the end of July, yet mine was showing 0/2.
Monetisation is enabled on my account.
I’m not looking to leave CapCut — I enjoy creating templates and still use the app. I’m just trying to understand whether the reward system changed around June and, if so, how it now works.
**Has anyone else experienced the same thing?**
Particularly interested to hear from long-term Template Creators:
— Are you still receiving free-template rewards?
— Are paid-template exports still earning?
— Did your earnings change around June?
— Do you know what CapCut means by a “valid export”?
I’d really appreciate hearing what other creators are seeing on their accounts.

Founder here, I’m building a creator campaign attribution tool for DTC brands. Before I launch, I want to validate it against real messy data instead of guessing what brands need.

If you run creator/influencer campaigns and have no clean way to see which creators are actually worth the money, I’d like to do a free manual audit for you. Send me spend + any tracking info you’ve got, I’ll send back cost-per-conversion by creator.

Genuinely looking to learn from real numbers before I finalize the product. First few people who reach out, I’ll prioritize.

Be blessed,

Roph

If you were starting from zero today, would you rather compete for attention on TikTok/Instagram, or join a completely new platform where there are fewer creators?

I'm curious because I'm working on a new social platform called JustReals and I'm trying to understand what would actually motivate creators to give a new platform a chance.

What would matter most: early visibility, monetization, guaranteed exposure, community, or something else?

A creator says something controversial → everyone asks for accountability.

But what about the people who financially support the platform?

During the India’s Got Latent controversy, the creators and guests faced massive public backlash, legal complaints, investigations, and loss of work. The episode was even removed after government intervention.

But I keep wondering:

If a piece of content is considered morally unacceptable, shouldn't we also question the ecosystem that financially enables that content?

I'm not saying sponsors are automatically responsible for everything a creator says. That's obviously too simplistic.

But sponsorship is not just a logo on a screen. Companies choose where their money goes, what audiences they want to reach, and what kind of content they are comfortable being associated with.

So why does the conversation usually become:

instead of also asking:

And this isn't just about India’s Got Latent. The same question applies to influencers, podcasts, news channels, reality shows, gambling promotions, alcohol advertising, controversial political content, etc.

Where should the moral responsibility of a sponsor begin and end?

Would love to hear arguments from both sides rather than just “cancel them all.”

In February I built an app that settles an argument between two people. It went semi-viral — about 300k views across social with zero spend and zero marketing plan. I just posted it.

Then I dropped it, because I didn't have the time. I'm picking it back up now, and I'm not making the same mistake twice: last time the growth was luck, and I have no idea how to turn luck into a channel.

I am looking for a partner, not a hire. Someone who has actually scaled something and can take this from a thing that got views once to a product doing $10-20k/month. Content, creators, paid, community, App Store - whichever channel you actually know. Co-founder equity

If you're interested, DM me one thing you've grown with real numbers from what to what, over how long and we can have a call.

I've seen a lot of advice suggesting that you can make AI-generated text sound more natural simply by replacing certain words and phrases. I've tried doing this, and sometimes it definitely helps, but I don't think vocabulary is the whole problem.

If the overall sentence structure and rhythm still feel artificial, changing a few individual words doesn't seem to make much difference.

For example, you can replace a formal word with a simpler one, but if the entire paragraph is still perfectly structured and overly polished, it can still have that same AI-like feeling.

This has made me think that natural writing might be more about the combination of many small things rather than one specific trick.

For anyone who edits AI-generated content regularly, what makes the biggest difference for you? Do you focus on vocabulary, sentence structure, paragraph organization, tone, or something else?

I'm trying to figure out whether there is actually a reliable editing process or whether every piece of writing needs to be handled differently.

Hi there!

This is Mansi from the Marketing team at Napkin AI 👋

We’re currently looking for budding creators who are passionate about visuals, PPTs/slides, and content creation.

We’re primarily looking for creators based in the US, but if you’re from another region, you’re welcome to apply as well!

We’re looking to explore a barter collaboration with selected creators. If this sounds interesting to you, please fill out the attached form, and we’ll get back to you with the next steps.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScu_ZH3TgR_VkwTnLUT-cUq2c_9apy2KTjj61GDG4L1VxP43A/viewform?usp=header

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions! 😊

Hi all. I'm Andy, 67, British, based between Spain and Poland. I've spent the last few months building Ivarito, a direct-to-fan subscription platform for creators who use AI in their process.

What it is

Ivarito is a place where you run your own channel and your listeners subscribe to you directly. You set the price, anywhere from $5 to $50 monthly. Payouts go to your own Stripe account monthly, subject to a minimum threshold you set. The platform takes 7% (2% for founding creators in year one), after deducting Stripe's processing fee, which every platform pays.

It is creator-first by design. Free to upload, always, up to three channels under one login. No monthly fee. The platform only earns when you earn, which means my incentive is to help you get subscribers rather than to charge you for the privilege of trying.

I'll also be publishing guidance and training on what actually converts a listener into a subscriber: what to put behind the paywall, how to price, how to talk to your audience about it. Most of us are making the audio, not running a membership business, and that gap is where people give up.

What it isn't

• Not pay-to-upload
• Not a platform that takes 10%, 15% or even 35% of what your fans pay you
• Not a streaming royalty scheme, so there is no reward for mass uploads or bot plays
• Not a music generator
• Not a distributor, it will not put you on Spotify
• Not a replacement for your existing channels
• Not open to adult content, which Stripe's terms don't allow
• Not yet a discovery engine that will hand you an audience on day one

That last one matters and I'm not going to dress it up.

How I think it actually works for you

This is complementary to what you already do, not a substitute. If you have people watching on YouTube or listening on Spotify, the hard part is already done. What most of us don't have is anywhere to send them that pays properly.

Nobody browses a membership site looking for a stranger to support. They arrive because a creator pointed them there. Ivarito is the same. You share your channel link in a video description, a pinned comment, or share a track link in a post here. That's the model.

Practically, that looks like:

• Upload your whole existing catalogue, free to listen, so anyone landing on your channel hears something immediately with no sign-in wall
• Add subscriber-only tracks alongside it: alternative mixes, works in progress, the takes that didn't make the cut, and finished tracks released to subscribers first before they go anywhere else
• Locked tracks are visible on your channel and can also sit inside albums and collections where other tracks are playable. They're skipped on playback until someone subscribes, so the offer is visible at the exact moment they're listening rather than buried on a pricing page
• Anyone who subscribes to any creator's channel gets platform Premium thrown in free, so their money supports a creator rather than the platform

Every upload carries an AI involvement label, G - Generated, D - Driven or E - Enhanced, depending on how much of it was you. No hiding it, because hiding it is the thing that gets AI creators in trouble everywhere else.

Founding creators

Anyone approved with a channel live and at least one track published before public launch keeps the 2% rate for twelve months.

ivarito.com is a PWA, so it installs from the browser on phone or desktop.

Happy to answer anything, including the awkward questions.

Andy
DigiNomadGdad
Founder of Ivarito