Keyword staking and consumptive model

Starting a new thread to develop ideas for a new keyword model.

I liked the original planned update to include both a staking and consumptive model but perhaps tweaked more towards consumptive.

Staking is a very interesting and innovative way to tie up PRE and push advertising or links on certain topics of interest. I also think the PRE tokenomics benefit by having these staking utilities that take tokens out of circulation even if only for a period of time. Speaking of time periods it may be beneficial to implement an unstake cooldown period eventually. Perhaps if you choose to unstake keywords there may be a 24 hour or 48hour or 7 day or 30 day cooldown period where you still get the benefits of the stake but once the cooldown has past you would be able to unstake and remove the tokens. I don’t think the a cool down is needed at this time but eventually it might help Presearch understand risks better. Bottom line I want to see staking for keywords continue.

However, the problem with current keywords is in 3 primary areas:

  1. staking is currently winner take all. This drastically limits the number of stakes and staked tokens that would otherwise participate because very few would choose to maintain a stake if they are not the highest bidder. The first change should be to implement a winner take most approach with all stakers of the keyword sharing the remainder of views shown in the proportion of their stake.
    ex: 4 bidders (10,000; 5,000; 2,000, 500 PRE) The 10,000 stake as the highest stake would get 50% of the total staking views and 57% of the other 50% prorated views for total of just over 75% of total staking views. The 5k stake would get 28% of the 50% prorated share of views. the 2k stake would get 11% of the 50% prorated views, and the 500 stake would get only 3% of the 50% prorated views. In terms of total views on a keyword with 100k views a week the highest staker would get 78,500 of those views and the lowest staker would get 1500 views out of the 100k views. If the winner getting 50% immediate boost is too much that could be adjusted to 30% as a bonus to being the winning staker this would allow all other stakers to share 70% of total staking views getting more for their stakes. evenutally a fair winning stake bonus will be figured out to maximize value to advertizers and total keyword PRE stakes.

  2. There is no consumptive option. As I said above I think keyword staking is a great USP but does not bring any income to the project although still beneficial to the project and token especially when more users and advertisers are looking for ad space, as this has the potential to lock up many millions of tokens. Consumption on the other hand would put PRE or fiat $ back into the treasury as income. What you could do either simultaneously or after implementing #1 above is add a consumptive keyword option. I think initially 70% of total keyword views should be allocated to consumptive keywords. This would work just like the staking model in that winner takes most and all others consumptive bids would get views in proportion to their consumptive bids. Again what the starting bonus is for a winning stake or consumptive bid is up to the community and team for ease of math I am using 50% bonus to winners.
    When you put it all together you have staking assuming no consumptive bids winner would take most and the remainder in proportion to their stake ie: 1 stake and no consumptive bids = 100 percent of views on that keyword; many stakes = highest stake gets majority of views say 50% then the remainder 50% is split between all the stakes in proportion to their stake. This allows the little guy to still compete and get attention. The moment a consumptive bid is placed on a keyword they would immediately get 70% of the total views on the keyword regardless of their consumptive bid amount. This prioritizes consumptive use (paid advertising) as even a nominal bid would outperform hundreds of thousands of PRE staked (this may entice the staker to enter in the consumptive bidding process). While still making staking now only 30% of total views still winner takes most and prorated remainder worth maintaining their stakes. Initially this model would entice small bids for great results and eventually make consumptive bids more competitive with user growth or on highly productive keywords. If there are multiple bids for consumptive keywords the winner takes most and other biders are given views in proportion to their bids. Ie: stakers are getting 30% of total views and consumptive bids are getting 70% with winner take most 50% of the 70% and all bids prorated views of the other 50%. In terms of total views with the same 4x stakers and 100k view assumptions the top staker is now only getting 23550 views, bottom staker is getting 450 views, and the sole consumptive bidder in this case even if only bidding .01 PRE per view would now get 70k of the total 100k views for a total consumptive cost of 700 PRE. When a user chooses to bid a keyword consumptively they set a total advertising budget in PRE for those keyword(s) bids and that PRE upon confirmation will be locked and used in accordance to the views paid for. If the budget in the above example was 1,000 PRE (10 PRE may be the initial non-refundable upfront cost to prevent gaming and overuse) after the 70k views 710 PRE was consumed (10 non-refundable fee and 700 pay/view) paid into the PRE treasury. The advertiser can at anytime cancel their keyword bids and get back all remaining tokens except the non-refundable amount which is paid upfront upon confirmation. If there are multiple consumptive bids it would work the same as the staking but bids now share 70% of views while stakes now only get 30% of total views.
    This model would sustain staking and make even nominal stakes or bids valuable and eventually competitive when number of regular users increases.

  3. Not easy to mass update or easily track keyword stats. I think this could be solved easily with the above changes but now that staking would no longer be be winner take all you could submit a stake for multiple keywords at the same time say 1000 PRE x 10 keywords or whatever amount of keywords you require = 10,000 PRE staked and every change to that ad would update all those keyword stakes immediately. This is a simple solution that could be implemented quickly and easily but admittedly is not the optimal solution. I think a more optimal solution is to be able to set a stake limit order whereby if no one is staking on any of the specific keywords you designate it would only use the minimum 100 stake and would bid up automatically against other advertisers to your max stake amount per keyword for those designated keywords against other competitor advertisers in 100 PRE increments. This would make keywords much easier to update in mass and set it and forget it instead of hundreds of individual tedious updates you can now possibly bin them into low, medium, and high value keywords and provide max stake for each category updating hundreds or thousands of keyword stakes in seconds. If you set a max stake for 100 keywords prior to confirmation it would calculate the total current stake amount of PRE required by checking against highest stake of your 100 keywords and leveraging up to your max stake amount on each if required and 100 if not staked. You would then select the amount of PRE above that current total as your pool for bidding upto your max. Upon confirmation the minimum + the bidding pool would be locked. You can always unstake whenever you want or stake individual keywords. You can also choose not to do a max stake and instead just stake a specific amount for as many keywords as you wish example Presearch would just have an initial stake amount input box and a max stake amoutn input box if you only wan to stake a specific amount like 100 PRE on 50 keywords you would only input an initial stake amount and leave the max stake amount clear. Upon checkout the PRE stake lockup would calculate to 5k PRE. If you wanted to make staking have a cost to cover development of this new model you might charge a non-refundable fee for the stake say 5-10 PRE so that when you confirm the total required is 5010 of which 10 PRE goes directly to treasury and the 5k is staked on keywords as described above. This way there is no hidden cost or pool other than the stake that would need to pay anything. (And you can pay me 1 of every 10 non-refundable PRE if you implement this cost structure for staking and consumptive as payment for coming up with this way better and very usable model ;^)

To better manage stakes an API similar to the node API could keep track of the number of views of all your keywords and apps could be created to track and manage their performance. Within the keyword page a new column should be created for views and clicks. This would be in addition to current total views and clicks. The idea is that you could see both your total cumulative views but also if you change a stake or the ad or wanted to run week over week comparisons to different ads to compare performace you have a sort of trip-odometer-widget for views and clicks that track from the day and time of the reset without resetting or clearing the totals. An API and app would be able to do this best but until then this is an idea to make it more useful and advertiser friendly.

Why both staking and consumptive. because this is a unique selling point of advertizing on Presearch that should never fully go away and because the number of active users is so small. This would help tokenomics and probably easily triple or 10x the number PRE locked up in keyword stakes (both because of ease of implementing large amount of stakes and changes but also because their is still views even if not the top stake). This model also gamifies consumption in proportion to the value given to the advertizer. If the advertizers are getting plenty of value they would continue to consume more and get more value and the market would self regulate for competitive value. but if the value is still not here yet due to low number of current active users staking would still be a great option locking up way more tokens possibly getting new non-refundable fees and creating value for all. When there are no consumptive ads the stakers get to share 100% of the views on their keywords. With the number of PRE in circulation increasing this type of lock up utility is great to have. If you start charging PRE to stakers on the other hand as has been suggested by the team and the value is not here yet for most of the stakes users would simply unstake and sell thier tokens or unstake and hold or move PRE to nodes or search staking. Turning a no cost value proposition or even modest income potential from non-refundable fees into a higher cost (if tokens move to search or node staking) or sell presure to the token. I think once this is built out you could play with the percentage maybe it would need to be 90% or even 95% of total views to the consumptive ads but eventually the community and team would find an equilibrium that works.

1 Like

Keyword staking vs other ad types

Current model and stats:

For years, token holders could stake PRE for keyword advertising. The model was simple, per keyword phrase, the one who stakes the most PRE, his ad will be shown at the top of the organic search results.

This highest-bidder-gets-all model has resulted in a relatively stable environment with these stats:

  • Total staked PRE for all keyword ads: ~40M PRE
  • Colin’s private “fun” keywords staked: ~13M (Bitcoin, Jesus, Doug Ford, Justin Trudeau, etc.)
  • Leftover staked PRE: ~27M
  • Total number of active (staked) keyword phrases: ~16,000

Just recently, Tim decided (as a test) to change the position from the #1 spot above the first organic search result to the bottom of the search results page (below the last result for that page).

His main argument is that for years, keyword stakers didn’t have to pay for these ad placements other than stake their PRE (which can be unstaked after the advertising campaign ends… so, in essence, advertising for free)… and that this #1 spot should be monetized better, and/or give users a better search experience by not showing an ad as the first result, but an organic search result.

Also, these keyword ads often had longer titles and more text characters than regular organic searches. So, this was cut down to a fixed (smaller) number of characters for both the title and text.

Before I continue… besides the stats… let me look at the…

Quality of these keyword ads

Well, the perceived quality by platform users is simply “bad” and often “annoying”.

Professional advertisers don’t use this feature for numerous reasons such as:

  • Ineffective ad management system where you have to add (or change, or re-bid) your keywords one by one, and have to wait for “email alerts” to be warned that your keyword has been overbid.
  • Lack of professional reporting about stats, and ways to find interesting keywords (phrases), you know with large volume. No invoices or tax reports.
  • Required PRE staking. There is no option to pay with fiat.
  • Low traffic volume.

As a result, most of the ads are now run by “enthusiastic” PRE token holders who want to earn some extra affiliate income. However, they do (often) lack the professionalism to create “converting” ad copy. They act like “It’s free, so let me try, and see whether or not I will receive some clicks and potential affiliate income”.

Also, the ads are often not properly targeted because the ad is free, and it just costs 100 PRE to stake to add additional “irrelevant” keywords.

And most of the ad URLs have clearly visible affiliate links or unknown re-direct URLs. Both are hyperlinks that regular platform users don’t like to click on (and often don’t trust).

As most wannabe affiliates are also not “creative”… the majority of keywords are related to the crypto world and targeted to crypto users such as ads for exchanges and crypto or trading products.

Hence, the average click-through rate (CTR) is relatively low, and regular users find most of these ads annoying.

So, as for many years, the team announced upcoming consumptive keyword staking… but the main question should be…

Will consumptive keyword staking lead to a better user experience and effective way of monetization?

Well, first look at the alternatives for this #1 spot…

  • Bing display ads.
  • Professional text ads (as part of the “Takeover ad package deal”).
  • Presearch’s own (affiliate link) ads.
  • Other types of display ads such as banners.

Ad A) Bing Ads.

Why invite the wheel yourself as you can easily piggyback on Bing’s professional system with more professional ads and better targeting?

Ad B) Professional text ads (as part of the “Takeover ad package deal”)

You know, an advertiser may select a (small) number of preferred keywords to combine with his running PTA campaign. By definition, these ads should be visible and positioned above other keyword ads.

Ad C) Presearch’s own (affiliate link) ads or product carrousel

Why allow keyword stakers to use affiliate links while Presearch itself is already an affiliate for many affiliate programs?

You know, the team has problems with the TakeAds affiliate links in the organic results… but by setting up affiliate keyword campaigns themselves… and clearly indicating that these are sponsored links (you know with the blue PRE sponsor icon), you may overcome the current habit that many users don’t like to click on affiliate links (offered by unknown affiliates).

Ad D) Other types of display ads such as banners

[Especially for smaller devices such as iPads and mobiles] Instead of the annoying PTA ads on the search results pages with floating CTA text and buttons… for the user experience… it’s so much better to create a simple banner (a small copy of the homepage takeover) and place this at the #1 spot (instead of a keyword ad).

This way the PTA is guaranteed fully visible… instead of the current annoying floating CTA text and button without showing the image (background + ad copy).

This is the ideal solution for the PTA on smaller devices for all generic ads, but can also be used as separate ad option for (a range of) keyword phrases.

So, the first decision to be made…

What ad types will be shown at this #1 place, and in what order?

I mean if you have the option to choose… what type will be shown first (and as a result the others won’t show up… or below the top #1)

I leave it over to you… but in comparison to the current situation concerning the free keyword staking ads…

From a user experience perspective, I prefer all these 4 ad types above the (often) annoying keyword (staking) ads. And from a financial perspective, these are all better ways to monetize the #1 spot in comparison to the (current) free keyword staking.

So, after this decision… what to do with keyword staking?

First, as the keyword ad is now shown at the bottom of the result page… and users often don’t scroll to the bottom… these ads won’t be noticed for every search request… and to get ideas of the proper stats (number of views)… the scrolling (i.e. visibility of bottom ads) should be monitored.

BTW, to make it even more complex… the keyword ad can also be placed at any position between the top #1 spot and the last result. Also, more ads (and different ad types) can be shown on a result page.

Should we introduce a consumptive model and what are the alternatives?

  • Professional fully consumptive model based on winner-takes-all.
  • Current keyword staking model with fixed % monthly fee.
  • Combined PRE staking and consumptive model.
  • Keyword staking (as it is right now or with some adjustments)

Ad A) Fully consumptive model

To be effective and to get the highest monetization… just “mimic” the Google Adwords or Bing Ads platforms.

So, with the same professional management system where professional advertisers can pay with fiat and get professional support and (tax) invoices.

Any other solution where we continue with an ineffective keyword management system, and the current keyword staking done by “wannabe affiliates” won’t bring in new professional advertisers.

Ad B) Current keyword staking model with fixed % monthly fee.

In the simplest form, a keyword staker will pay a certain % fee for the average staked number of PRE for a specific period (f.e. each calendar month).

(or optional if easier to implement, the fee is based on the highest amount of PRE staked)

At first sight, this may look like a simple way to introduce the consumptive fee, however…

No matter if we will charge a consumptive fee or not. The entry barriers for professional advertisers are currently too high (as discussed above).

So, this way, we don’t solve the “quality” aspect (and also the monetization won’t be optimal).

Does charging a consumptive fee have an effect on the number of keywords staked?

Well, as many keyword stakers are now “try and maybe we have luck wannabe affiliates”, I expect that most of them will stop after a consumptive fee introduction.

Only for proven effective keyword phrases (highly targeted and converting ad copy), they will probably pay for the ad costs.

To overcome this possible runaway, let’s look at the next option…

Ad C) Combined PRE staking and consumptive model

And although XPRE has several thoughts about how to set up this combo model, and keyword stakers will make the calculation to pay or not… still for the “free part”, keyword stakers may choose to keep running ineffective campaigns in the hope for better as long as these campaigns are “free”.

So, what are we trying to achieve?

Should we keep these ineffective campaigns running and show them on the platform, or should we try to get rid of them anyway?

Again, from a user perspective, we better get rid of these. You know, even placing the ads on the bottom won’t improve the user experience at all.

Continuing free staking, will only “solve” the risk that many current keyword stakers may stop and that we may “kill” part of the token utility… but why continue with a token utility that is bad for the user experience?

Ad D) Keyword staking (as it is right now or with some adjustments)

At first, this option sounds like no option. But after the recent adjustments as the placement at the bottom (and fewer characters)… these ads are less annoying and less visible. Plus, the expected runaway effect may be smaller in comparison if keyword advertisers have to pay for their clicks. Hence, you can argue that it’s not that bad to keep everything the same until a real professional keyword advertising platform is set up.

So, after considering everything… this is my advice…

  • Choose what types of ads you want to show at the #1 spot, and if choices, in which order. Also, decide whether or not Presearch should use the #1 spot for their own affiliate links.
  • Develop a professional keyword advertising platform that “mimics” Google Adsense and Bing Ads at least for the main professional features. As it’s a mimic, this can easily be outsourced (to save on our own developers’ capacity).
  • Leave the current system as it is, but better, introduce a small percentual monthly fee for the average staked PRE. This will lead to better ad quality and will stop untargeted and less effective ads. Also, leave the ad placement at the bottom, or somewhere halfway through the search results, but not at the top anymore as other ads should be used for the #1 spot.

This guarantees the best user experience, the highest monetization income, and the best-targeted ads with effective ad copy.

1 Like

Hi Ben good to see some community members jumping back into the fray. Although I agree with you on most things I differ here. I think the main benefit to me and to this very powerful concept is that you don’t have to be a professional advertiser or go through a centralized entity to get the world to potentially view something.

IMHO Keyword staking is a great concept, a clear selling point USP for Presearch, and should be maintain, just not in its current cumbersome form.

  1. I know you have a wealth of knowledge on advertising but keywords are not 100% used for traditional advertising like on goods and services as you are describing. This innovative model allows users to bring attention to other issues, facts, news, etc. Things that Google and Bing are curating out of existence, WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE HATE THOSE AND WANT SOMETHING ELSE. I have used this feature numerous times to highlight events or issues using certain keywords that still if not moved to the bottom would be the top result accurately giving people exactly what they are trying to find on the internet, but due to censorship are not able to find on other search providers. I have even been able to find posts where Google is actively curating a topic when nothing can be found, I can find the source immeditely stake it screenshot the results page showing Presearch as a superior search provider. When you think of this feature from a traditional Ad and user perspective i would say your right on many of your points but most of the other keywords that people would be doing what I am advocating are not typical keywords to try to monetize and people may not provide that SERVICE to the community if it was not nearly free via staking.

  2. I think you could probably just charge a non-refundbale nominal fee for staking and still get something on many thousands of keywords and phrases that would otherwise never be utilitized by any other traditional advertiser. Yes users may get a bit of JV ads and some things may not be exact matches all the time for what you are looking for but especially with the shorter ads this should not interfere with user experience much but has the potential to enhance it. If you start charging ongoing fees many would abandon their stakes, sell, and/or move them to nodes or searches to actually earn more PRE instead of providing this community service. That would mean sell pressure or an additional unintended cost on the project while eliminating a huge USP.

  3. It doesn’t have to be this OR something else it can be both. We can improve this model and keep it going even if the team decides later something else may provide better monetization. you can develop it and let it ride. you can also allow presearch who has the vast majority of tokens in treasury to use the model to advertise professionally on behalf of others taking either PRE or FIAT and easily get the vast majority of views for the advertiser but NOT ALL which shows the decentralized aspect another USP and reason people hate google. In the past Presearch ran campaigns alongside this current model, where a user would see 2x ads instead of 1. This means they could still easily advertise even with this updated model continuing on.

Implementing what I suggested above would likely dramatically increase the PRE staked on keywords over time as it would be much easier to manage and update stakes and because people would leave stakes even if not in the #1 staked position (with the elimination of winner take all). This also does not prohibit any of your ideas from being implemented or trying other types of ad types and models it would just be a factor of what is the absolute #1 position at that time of other integrations. Adding a nominal 1x stake fee for every new keyword stake would be easier to implement without running into token balance issues and still bring in something instead of nothing, while maintaining a PRE utility. Adding the consumption as I have described creates a new option for users or presearch to advertize using PRE or FIAT, it creates competiton to the stakers likely converting many to better compete on monetizing keywords. eliminating this model completely or going to a full consumptive only model would be a huge mistake.

1 Like

Ad 1) I agree that Presearch has no clear anti-abuse policy and it allows “advertisers” to place any “ad” they want unless someone will “flag” it as “abuse/controversial” and it will be analyzed and may be removed by the platform.

This “free-to-use-for-whatever-reason” policy is distinctive in comparison to Google/Bing.

You know, Google doesn’t like affiliates and often doesn’t allow advertisers to place “affiliate” keyword ads (often requested by the affiliate program itself that doesn’t allow search engine advertising).

Also, Google/Bing have many restrictions concerning tolerated ad types such as…

  • Prohibited content: Content you can’t advertise on the Google Network.
  • Prohibited practice. Prohibited practices: Things you can’t do if you want to advertise.
  • Restricted content. Restricted content and features: Content you can advertise, but with limitations such as Sexual content, Alcohol, Gambling & Games, Healthcare and medicines, Political content, Financial services, Copyright & Trademarks.
  • Editorial and technical standards: Quality standards for your ads, websites, and apps.

And yes, some Presearch token holders may and some probably will use the keyword staking for “promoting” content that won’t show up in the (top) search results (as you are doing), and others use them for ads “forbidden” by Google/Bing.

And of course, you can have “sympathy” for specific keyword ads/promos placed on the Presearch platform that are impossible to place on Google… and for some, you can even argue that these ads should be free as to stimulate “freedom” of choice and/or to promote charity or other “good for humanity” events…

But in essence, keyword ads are a form of (paid) advertising, especially if placed on the #1 spot result placement… a place that can often be better monetized as explained in many other ways.

The only difference so far is that keyword staking was free (with a winner-takes-all model), or in other words… the PRE token has “utility”, i.e. something for free that you (an advertiser) should otherwise pay for.

(Just think about it… the lower the minimum PRE keyword stake threshold… the higher the presumed PRE token “value”)

So, yes, I do agree that keyword staking in the current form is meaningful for Tokenomics, and if we go for a full consumptive model (and stop with the “Free” advertising option ), in that case, the “utility value” will be gone, resulting (in theory) a negative effect on Tokenomics.

But there should be a balance between free ad utility and paid ad income (monetization)…

And as you don’t want to show too many ads on the search result pages, otherwise users will leave… you should decide what and how often you want to show paid vs free ads (the same decision the team had to make between the percentage of free background images vs PTA ads).

I focused on the monetization and user experience part (the quality of these ads)… and I also focused on the main user group of keyword staking ads… the “wannabe” affiliate types.

A significant part of these “affiliate ads” are forbidden on Google… and that’s for a reason… you may not always like the reasons but it’s not that Google doesn’t want to make money… they do think about user experience and have to apply to international advertising laws… or to say it in other words…

Just as Google has a more professional advertising platform it has a more professional “attitude” and can fall back on better “experiences” of what ad content should be allowed (by law and “moral” standards).

The small part of “free sympathy” ads is not something to ignore… but you can argue whether it should be the goal to give PRE token holders the free opportunity to promote anything they want… at the #1 spot…

Some (currently a minority) will use it for good practices such as promoting “charity” or “unknown content”… but others will use it for “bad” practices such as annoying (often irrelevant) “affiliate” ads or other intrusive ads.

For me, “banning” all affiliate (keyword) ads and adding more professional restrictions may be a solution to improve the ad quality and user experience.

I think “affiliate programs” can be better monetized by the team itself… if a user knows that a hyperlink is “trustworthy” and authorized by the team and by clicking you support the project… this will improve CTRs drastically (and the team will earn all income… resulting in higher ad income in comparison to free or paid keyword staking).

And yes, managing affiliate campaigns is labor intensive but if set up smartly, it can also be (largely) automated.

So, what you see as a USP, “give users the freedom to post any ad for free by staking PRE”, is in practice biased to “wannabe” affiliate marketers… resulting in a poor user experience, making this USP less effective.

Ad 2 The goal should not be to get as many keyword ads as possible as thousands of keywords and phrases that would otherwise never be utilized by any other traditional advertiser.

The focus should be on effective and interesting ads that users will like as they help the user with their search queries.

The current system fails to achieve this. In short, the ads are often annoying or irrelevant.

Now what about the possible negative effect of introducing (a full) consumptive system?

The moment you add a consumptive fee and/or you make them less interesting for the advertiser (such as placing the ads at the bottom, showing less frequently, shorting title/text seize)…

You can expect keyword stakers to stop their keyword campaigns (either fully or stop specific keyword campaigns).

This is a logical effect of making something less interesting.

Should we be afraid of the effects?

Look again at the stats…

There are just 16K staked keywords and 27M PRE staked.


What is the additional income if the platform charges a 1% staking fee per month (as Tim came with this example)?

Of course, it depends on how many of the current keyword stakers will continue with their campaigns (and how many will stop).

Let’s assume that 50% (of total PRE staked) will continue and the other 50% will stop, in that case, the monthly income will be $2970 (13.5M x 1% x $0.022).

That’s less than $100 per day.

So, that’s the “median” calculated income… the actual income will be between $0 and $200 per day.

I classify this as hardly interesting in financial terms.

You can just pay for some coffee for the team.

If you compare that with how much Google is earning for their best 16K keyword phrases each day…

I leave it over to the smart people to try to estimate this… but Google is earning several hundred times more in comparison to what Presearch can earn via this 1% fee of stake PRE per month model.

By knowing this… you can ask yourself…

Why the rush to (finally) start with consumptive fees for keyword ads?

Because it’s for many years on the roadmap?

And now we are looking at some (easy-to-implement) changes to get some additional ad income.

Why not mimic Google and create a professional keyword advertising platform that will attract professional advertisers and take some time?

And yes, I agree, by introducing a consumptive fee, there is the risk that keyword stakers will leave “en masse” if not implemented and communicated correctly.

But I’m not afraid of the effects for Tokenomics. Just to compare…

27M PRE tokens are less than 10% of the current node staking (active staked nodes ~260M, inactive ~30M).

Some keyword stakers will become node operators, others search stakers, and some will just stop staking. And only in this last group, there may be token holders who will sell their tokens. So what?

The token inflation is gigantic anyway.

But if these staked keyword ads are replaced by other ad types, and/or for a professional keyword advertising system… the team will earn substantially earn more ad income… with on balance, a positive effect on Tokenomics.

Ad 3) Yes, you can combine all kinds of ad monetization.

But you can’t show too many ads at once. So, you have to make decisions, and you better choose the most effective (taking into account user experience vs ad income).

I don’t agree with your assumption that if every keyword staker will get views no matter how much he stakes (more or less in the ratio of staking percentage) this will attract more keyword stakers.

Let alone, that this will lead to better ad copy and a better user experience.

By eliminating or worsening the winner-takes-all concept, there is no (or less) need to overbid and increase the stake. The reason that Google is making so much money is due to this bidding process.

Also, let’s say you want to bid on the term “Kucoin”, and every keyword staker will try to promote this CEX with their affiliate link. The ad title/text may vary a little, but in essence, the user sees the same ad content, and there is no “best ad copy” trigger.

If you compare that with Google which has created a system to reward the best ad copy (the higher the CTR the less CPC)… unfortunately, Presearch has no such system.

So, the user experience at Google is by definition better as ads with better ad copy are shown more frequently.

So, why not let these wannabe affiliates bid against each other to increase the PRE stake or CPC price?

Why reward “freebie seekers” with free ads?

In most cases, the advertisers who want to pay zero or less than the top bidder, their ad is less effective than the top bidder. So, more annoying for the user.

For example, for the keyword Kucoin, you may promote another CEX, let’s say Gateio… this ad is less effective, and shouldn’t be shown.

Anyway, it’s good to discuss these kinds of topics… but I’m afraid that the team will make a small change and introduce a marginal consumptive fee with a minimal effect.

I would leave everything the same as it is now…

So, no consumptive fee, and ads are shown at the bottom with the current winner-takes-all model.

You know the positive income effect of the consumptive model would be marginal while you unnecessarily chase away current keyword stakers.

The “problem” with user experience is already “solved” by moving the ads to the bottom.

So, finally, focus on setting up a professional keyword advertising system for professional advertisers for #1 spot placements who want to pay and are capable of creating professional ad copy.

And in the meantime, use the #1 spot for other ad types.

1 Like

I would look to change Keyword staking to Keywords as you implement a better staking model that competes with a new consumptive model.

As previously explained keywords should be at the top either in the #1 or #2 ad position (if other ads as Ben listed provide better results for users and more income then sure put those at #1 and Keywords at #2).
I still strongly believe staking in competition with consumptive CPC/CPV is a great play.

Staking – Instead of charging stakers an ongoing fee that would likely reduce or kill a great USP; I would instead recommend implementation of a 1x stake fee for every new stake or change. If you want to change your ads you will again pay another 1x stake fee.

The fee structure I think that makes sense is:
Staked amount | Non-refundable stake fee
100 - 1000 | 10%
1001 - 1 million |1%
Over 1million | 0.1%

10 PRE for a 100 PRE staked keyword and 100 PRE for a 1k staked keyword. A 100k stake would cost a 1090 PRE fee… etc.

You want to maintain a great innovation USP you also want to maintain large stakes that are beneficial to the tokenomics by having large quantities of PRE locked up providing value but not in regular circulation. The fee structure percentages are more competitive the more you stake but higher for small amounts to disincentivize cheap junk staking which will still be possible but in competition will be seen very seldom by users.

This staking fee structure over time will pay for the development cost and become a net income stream even if initially small. It preserves a USP for the project allowing anyone to compete for keywords and incentivizes larger stakes that are beneficial for the token by locking up millions. Allows competitive ads to get much greater views based on competition of staked PRE amount.
If you make the model easy to stake, track, and manage especially allowing large numbers of keywords to be staked at a time, I think the number of keywords and phrases as well as tokens locked will quickly increase above the current 16k staked keywords and preserve and grow the amount of tokens staked. People will know what their long term cost is and can still adjust ads or keywords with a simple fee.
As far as the annoying ads Ben has highlighted the winner takes most will still incentivize staking competition while at the same time increasing the diversity of ads and giving higher stakes (possibly higher quality) more views. IMHO this reduces the issues noted for users, doesn’t kill off a Presearch USP but rather enhances it, all while being token positive.

Assuming 25k keywords and phrases staked 80% @ 100 stake, 10% @ 1k, 5% @2k, 4% @3k; 0.5% @4k, 0.3% @5K, 0.15% @10k, 0.04% @100k, and 0.01% @1M: This WAG would equate to a 1 time fee of 777K PRE assuming an annual 20% turnover/change rate in stakes this is an additional 155k PRE. If stakes grow by 20% annually as users grow that’s around 186k PRE income annually just from staking and locks up 14M + and growing PRE.

Now add in a consumptive model that directly competes with the staking model that is 100% consumptive PRE or FIAT income and you have a great #1 or #2 ad spot option that starts to slow the PRE outflows. Most monetizing keywords will get quality ads competing and winning most of the views.

You can still test use or develop other options alongside this competitive keywords model.

XRPRE, I like your dedication and the constant and never-ending stream of new suggestions.

I also like the idea of a “one-time” staking fee charged the moment you stake.

However, implementing your concepts has some disadvantages for keyword stakers as a result of the current bidding system.

A) Each time your keyword bid is overbidden, you have to stake again (i.e. higher your staked number of PRE)… or your bid is “worthless” as your ad won’t show up in the results… and you paid a staking fee without getting the benefits.

And you know, it can take several competing bids between you and your competitor(s) to finally become the winning bidder.

And all “competitors” have to increase their stakes several times.

Of course, per keyword phrase, Presearch can introduce a system that only charges the additional PRE staked (on top of the prior bid).

But still the “losers” will end up with a paid staking fee while their ads are not shown.

Now, you can argue… allow these stakers to use the staked PRE for other keywords if the related ad was never shown.

This introduces immediately a new “problem”… what if the ad was only shown for a very short period?

So, instead of “solving” this problem for each individual keyword… the platform may charge a fee for the total PRE staked for ALL keywords (and unused PRE).

In that case, a new “Token Balance” can be created “PRE Keyword Wallet”… and the moment you “deposit” PRE from your regular “PRE Wallet” to this Keyword Wallet, the system charges the staking fee.

Of course, the Keyword staked amounts are deducted from this Keyword Wallet balance, and if unstaked, will be added to this wallet (just as it is now for the regular PRE Wallet).

So, with my proposed “addition” to add a new “PRE Keyword Wallet” and (only) charge a staker fee for each deposit to this wallet, your aimed model may work (for new keyword stakers).

But for existing keyword stakers, how are you going to charge them?

A possible solution is that the team can decide to not charge them any staking fee until they will have to overbid or create a new keyword ad. And “force” them to use the new “PRE Keyword Wallet” for these overbids and new ads.

That said, the main “problem” with your model is that keyword stakers won’t have the guarantee that their ad will be shown, and/or that the ad will get (sufficient) views and clicks.

This is a new barrier… (professional) advertisers want to pay for actual views/clicks, and I think that they don’t want to pay “upfront” for “uncertain” results.

So, although I find the keyword staking fee an interesting concept, it’s not my favorite solution.

What I like about your model is the stake fee “structure”…

The more you stake, the relatively lower the fee… or in other words…

The more you stake, the higher the fee discount (i.e. the higher the benefits).

In my opinion, all staking models should be either linear or better with (relatively) increasing benefits the more you stake.


I don’t like the decreasing benefits of Search Staking.

Small Search stakers are getting relatively high APYs (up to 36%) while Big Search stakers are getting lower APYs (> 500K PRE, less than 10%)… (assuming that Search stakers will do the maximum 25 searches per day).

From a tokenomics viewpoint, there should be a “motivation” for stakers to increase their stake.

(Or if you look from the other side… if Big stakers will reduce their stake, they should relatively lose more… making it a “hard” decision to unstake)

The current Search staking methodology has 2 other disadvantages:

  • It stimulates “fake” searches as the maximum APY will be reached by doing 25 searches each day.

  • It stimulates “fake” (i.e. multiple) user accounts as with more accounts you can get higher APYs.

However, I think that at the moment, not many users will create multiple accounts (and it’s against the TOS)… as the associated Ethereum gas fees for additional deposits/withdrawals are too high…

This will all change the moment the PRE (Cosmos) Chain is live.


If you keep the current Search Staking method… when the Cosmos chain is live… and don’t change it… the team will have to fight (again) against a new group of “token farmers”.

(Just as they now have to find a way to stop the new “fake” accounts as a result of the “improved” affiliate program)

So, my advice, change the current Search Staking method as follows:

  • Reduce the current maximum of 25 searches to 10 searches.

  • Make the PRE reward system linear or better reward Big stakers relatively more than small stakers (increasing benefits scale).

  • Ensure that the APYs for Search Staking never exceed the Node Staking APYs.

  • Introduce a “bonus” PRE reward for stakers who allow “ad personalization”.Just an example related to keyword staking… Show them an extra keyword ad (after some form of monetization has been introduced). But in essence, you can show more ads of any type and form.

1 Like

Your criticism of my idea seems unfounded since I do not support a winner takes all staking or consumptive model but rather winner takes most. This may be a concern to you perhaps in other ways but even a 100 stake would still get some views even with 30 other stakers on that specific keyword or phrase.

Also in my proposal you would have a true consumption model in direct competition to the stakers. As soon as an ad is entered on the consumptive side the total staking views drop to only 30% of all views and still winner take most so the staker would still get views just even smaller than if there were no consumptive ads.

I also suggested a stake and max stake option when submitting your stake request. If you only wanted a specific stake amount for say 50 keywords you enter stake amount only, copy and paste your 50 keywords and phrases, enter your ad and link info then submit the checkout screen would provide the warning about how this works and show the total PRE cost for your stakes which are refundable and the fees which are non-refundable. Then you confirm. I can see it all in my head how it would look and work.

If you wanted to be competitive with those 50 keywords, you would also enter a max stake amount with that option. Now when you go to checkout it runs each of the 50 keywords against current stakes and moves the stake amount up to the highest or your maximum on each keyword in relation to what it staked. It now shows the current stake some maybe 100 if no one was staked others may be anywhere between your stake and max stake amount based on competition of currently staked keywords. the non-refundable stake fee is calculated and shows. Now the only difference is how much you would like to allocate towards bidding up to your max stake for all those keywords. Once decided enter this amount; the total amount of tokens that would come out of your usable account would be xxxx for stakes, xxx for the current stake fees, and xxxx for the bid up to your max stake that would go into an escrow to fund upstaking your keywords with requisite fees. You can alway add or remove those escrowed funds whenever you want. Once that amount is depleted or removed the max stake feature turns off and greys out, but you can always add more and/or increase your max stake amount for those keywords. That escrow will bid up to your max stake in 100 PRE increments if any of those 50 keywords are outbid.
If anyone wants to change their current ads that would be a change and require a new stake fee vs competitive bidding up of your current unchanged ad. All of this is just for improving keyword staking but again these would directly compete with CPC/CPV consumption. So those stakers would quickly become familiar with a similar yet very powerful consumptive model all competing for an ad spot.

Hello, Just to make a clarification regarding search rewards, For small amounts like 2,000 is Approximately 11,52% No 36% (The image is a reference), equally if we take as an example a stake of 500,000k the annual reward would be 9.99% In case you do the 25 daily searches, You can do your own tests here

Presearch PRE Staking Validators & Calculator | Staking Rewards[quote=“Ben, post:7, topic:1276, full:true”]

I don’t like the decreasing benefits of Search Staking.

Small Search stakers are getting relatively high APYs (up to 36%) while Big Search stakers are getting lower APYs (> 500K PRE, less than 10%)… (assuming that Search stakers will do the maximum 25 searches per day).

From a tokenomics viewpoint, there should be a “motivation” for stakers to increase their stake.

(Or if you look from the other side… if Big stakers will reduce their stake, they should relatively lose more… making it a “hard” decision to unstake)

The current Search staking methodology has 2 other disadvantages:

  • It stimulates “fake” searches as the maximum APY will be reached by doing 25 searches each day.

  • It stimulates “fake” (i.e. multiple) user accounts as with more accounts you can get higher APYs.

However, I think that at the moment, not many users will create multiple accounts (and it’s against the TOS)… as the associated Ethereum gas fees for additional deposits/withdrawals are too high…

This will all change the moment the PRE (Cosmos) Chain is live.


If you keep the current Search Staking method… when the Cosmos chain is live… and don’t change it… the team will have to fight (again) against a new group of “token farmers”.

(Just as they now have to find a way to stop the new “fake” accounts as a result of the “improved” affiliate program)

So, my advice, change the current Search Staking method as follows:

  • Reduce the current maximum of 25 searches to 10 searches.

  • Make the PRE reward system linear or better reward Big stakers relatively more than small stakers (increasing benefits scale).

  • Ensure that the APYs for Search Staking never exceed the Node Staking APYs.

  • Introduce a “bonus” PRE reward for stakers who allow “ad personalization”.Just an example related to keyword staking… Show them an extra keyword ad (after some form of monetization has been introduced). But in essence, you can show more ads of any type and form.

We discussed the search rewards concerns in a previous post. I agree it will eventually most likely be an issue the team will spend substantial time trying to fix. However, for the immediate future there are other higher priorities to attack.

I don’t like the no-update-do-nothing plan to destroy a USP by keeping keyword stakes at the bottom where they will continue to get no views. And the consumptive keyword plan doesn’t even make sense. if you choose to pay 2% of your stake then it can move to the top position. there are many different stake amounts and might have people actually reduce their stakes to pay a lower consumptive payment and if their ad moves to the top what happens to their stake for the bottom position does it just stay there as well. What about multiple stakes on a keyword if a lower stake chooses to pay 2% they would get more views at the top while a 10k stake of the same keywords would remain at the bottom. I would just remove my 90+ keywords staked and I’m sure many other stakers would just stop staking keywords. What about improving the usability, management, a mass staking option to place an ad on many keywords at a time, and better tracking? This plan mentioned in the AMA just seems sloppy, half baked, and probably will not effectively bring in PRE revenue or a usable interface for advertisers. As a step change for a few weeks to test while developments are underway to overhaul usability, I would support but 6 months seems excessive.

Since the team at least appears to be asking for community feedback… I don’t like this plan. I prefer an overhaul and a more competitive construct. And I hope you actually listen to the community instead of just implementing another change without community input.

1 Like

There is nothing wrong with my calculations and numbers. You can use the calculator, but you have to select PRE and not USD… Below the 36,55% for staking 1,000 PRE.

And for 10K PRE staked its 17%+

Yes, You are absolutely right since I calculated it in $ and not in Pre, Well, emphasizing what has to do with abuse of the system, a person would have to have several accounts and would also have to have a stake in those accounts, Even if they could do it, it would represent a very high risk since the team can notice through the system and search patterns and that person would lose the pre-stake. Of all your accounts

If you look at the current Search Staking model and effectiveness, you should also look at the effectiveness of search rewards for non-stakers and the effectiveness of the current affiliate program.

You know the introduction of the Search Staking model was introduced “together with” the cutdown of the regular Search rewards by 90% (decrease in reward per search from 0.1 PRE to 0.01 PRE).

The main mentioned reason… to make token farming more difficult.

And yes, it helped a little to “stop” token farmers (as the rewards are so low that no user will take the time to do (bot) searches and wait for 4,000 days before the threshold is reached). But…

It killed the USP “Search to Earn”, and in the slipstream the affiliate program, with as a result that many regular users left frustrated and felt treated “unfairly”.

And what are we doing right now?

We try to get new users by supporting airdrop communities… a group of (potential) users who don’t care about the Search Engine but want to “farm” tokens. Well, this group of freebie seekers is not the proper one to focus your marketing attention on.

Let alone that as the threshold is still 1,000 and the regular reward is just 0.01 PRE… they still need to refer 19 new users (19 referrals x 50 = 950 + 50 own user bonus = 1,000 PRE) to achieve this level… and most of them will feel frustrated (and “cheated”) as their 50 PRE airdrop is “worthless”.

So, what happened? … Hundreds/thousands of “fake” user accounts who try to “cheat” the system by registering multiple new accounts, just to acquire the referral bonus rewards. And again the team had to fight back and “delete” or stop these new accounts from getting PRE rewards.

And it’s logical… and this could be expected…

But what’s worse… this “improved” affiliate program still “sucks” for the regular user as the threshold of 1,000 PRE is “unachievable” if a regular user refers just a few friends and wants to earn more PRE via search rewards.

With unachievable, I mean it will take years and it’s not worthwhile to spend your time and energy on.

You know, take the average searcher who does 3-5 searches a day (let’s assume 5), and refers 5 of his friends (which is quite a lot as I can’t convince any of my friends… and believe me I tried)… this user starts with 300 PRE (5x 50 PRE affiliate rewards and his own new user 50 PRE)… and still has to earn 700 PRE. As he will earn “only” 0.05 PRE per day, it will take 14,000 days (or 38+ years) to achieve the 1,000 PRE threshold, with the current price … this is just above $20.

So, I think we can conclude that the current affiliate program is still not effective for the regular (wanted) user… It’s just a “joke”… and works counterproductive as potential new users are attracted to get something for free. In practice, it’s worthless… and won’t result in further referrals but lead to bad user experiences and bad “talks” on social media.

So, the team should not be “proud” of the current (“improvements” of) the affiliate program, but the team should be ashamed for “cheating” potential new users with “fake” (i.e. unachievable) free PRE rewards.

Only “professional” affiliate marketers or influencers with big audiences may reach the threshold… all other, regular users can only earn search rewards if they stake PRE. So, since this 90% cutdown in search results, we still have no effective new “onboarding” strategy and effective affiliate program, and the team makes the same mistakes as it used to do… attracting the wrong “freebie seekers” group of users.

You reply to just one of the main disadvantages… the possibility of the multi-account abuse…

Well, if someone wants to stay under the radar, and uses just a few user accounts with VPN connections… the team/algorithm won’t probably notice. With hundreds of multiple user accounts, I agree that it will be harder to stay under the radar.

However, some team members also never expected registered users to abuse the system by scraping AI results while taking the risk that their (minimum of 1,000) PRE could be confiscated.

My main point is that people are creative and are often trying to trick the system.

Now, I challenge you to calculate or look in your stats what the average number of searches is for the group of Search stakers…

Using these numbers: 7.8M PRE staked for search staking, 380K rewarded searches, and 11K PRE in daily rewards… I can only conclude that the average search number for this group is relatively high reaching the 25 maximum (while in comparison regular users have 3-5 searches on average, Google stats).

So, maybe I’m awaking sleeping dogs… but the Search staking is either only used by users who do many regular searches anyway… or the system is misused… a nice challenge to figure this out for the team

Another point to emphasize… if you show the Search APY graph as shown above by using a maximum of 25 searches a day… you are (indirectly) saying… “We expect you to do 25 searches per day, and look at what incredibly awesome APY you will get”… again, attracting the wrong group of users who try to trick the system, or a group who find out that to get these APYs… they have to “search” more. A better approach would be to show the APY for the regular user who does 5 searches per day…


So, above we had this discussion among community members about the different methods that can be introduced for the new to-be-implemented consumptive keyword staking module…

Instead of a real discussion with someone from the management team discussing the PROs and CONs, again we are not taken seriously. The team just decided to go for this “simple” solution:

  • No charges for ads at the bottom of results (i.e. the current system)
  • 2% per/month of stake for ads at the top of results

And yes, we may again give our feedback, but the idea is to implement this and leave it for the next 6 months.

No arguments were given as to why this is the best solution.

So, I can imagine that XRPRE feels disappointed, and I don’t like this “arrogant” attitude as Colin promised to better listen to us.

You know the reason why I left this community was the lack of response, only after the new request for feedback, did I decide to come back… but again I’m now disappointed.

Since Tim took over, this project is a centralized project whatever you pretend to claim. And we have seen the result so far… lots of rookie mistakes and bad management decisions that could have been avoided if the team had listened to us, and especially in this Community.

So, as I was afraid happened… we ended up with a small minor change that I can’t even call an improvement, and the team thinks that it now can checkmark this roadmap item that was on the roadmap for 5 years (or was it longer?).

As explained in this topic… the current keyword staking method has many disadvantages.

In short, I want the team to develop (I prefer outsourcing) a professional keyword advertising module that can “compete” or at least has the same main professional features as Google/Bing (details see above).

This should be on the roadmap.

For the short-term, yes, we can “experiment” with some form of consumptive keyword staking, but this should be better for keyword stakers/advertisers, platform users, the platform (i.e. the project), and the Tokenomics.

Overall, replacing the (free) keyword ads from the #1 spot to the bottom of the search results, for me, is a positive move as it improves the user experience (if you agree with me that most of the current ads are annoying ads from wannabe affiliates and not placed by professional advertisers).

Hopefully, this #1 ad spot will be replaced by more effective and appealing professional ads with high CTRs.

However, from a keyword stakers’ viewpoint, they will see a significant decrease in ad views, making keyword staking less interesting for them.

Now what about this 2% monthly staking fee?

First, we don’t know how this will be implemented, and what current keyword stakers have to do to choose between paid or free ads.

Let’s assume that everything stays the same and that for each keyword ad, the advertiser has to choose between paid or free, where the free option is the default (the current setting, so nothing to change for the current keyword staker if he doesn’t want to pay for the ads).

And that there will be 2 wallets: “Paid Keyword Stakes” and “Free Keyword Stakes”.

Of course, at the moment of assignment, the staked PRE will be added to the proper “Token Balance” account (transferred from the main PRE Wallet).

In this case, it’s rather easy to calculate and charge the 2% monthly fee.

Either the system calculates the average PRE in the “Paid Keyword Stakes” account, or the algorithm can select the highest (paid) staked number for that month as the base.

Maybe the team has other plans about how this system will work, but this seems the most logical and easiest to develop and implement.

Anyway, what do I expect to happen?

  • I expect the majority of the current keyword ads to stay free as it is right now (especially for all those 100 PRE-staked keywords)
  • I expect a few thousand keyword ads to become paid ads, all starting with 100 PRE staked, and wait and see if other advertisers will also switch from free to paid, with less competition, the staked PRE will decrease for these paid keywords (lower than the current winning bids on the free module).
  • I expect some keyword advertisers to stop.
  • I don’t expect many new (professional) keyword advertisers to start using this new consumptive feature.

Overall, I don’t expect the current number of 16K active staked keywords to increase. On the contrary, I expect a decrease (mainly due to advertisers who will leave).

For the relevant current 27M staked PRE, I also do expect it to decrease, where I expect a maximum of 10M PRE to be staked for paid campaigns, around 10M+ to stay free, and 7M to stop (less attractive for the free ads and less PRE needed for the paid ads).

So, the new consumptive advertising income will be 2% per month, or 24% per year charged over a maximum of 10M PRE, so 2.4M PRE or 200K PRE per month at the max.

So, it depends on what these keyword stakers will do with their PRE leftover… some will sell, others will switch to Search or Node staking.

But overall, some current keyword stakers will complain or just stop without complaining, but the financial effects will be marginal…

This new consumptive keyword staking model won’t change the Tokenomics, won’t lead to a significant additional advertising income… unless the free #1 spots will be replaced for better converting and higher paying ads…

Until (hopefully and) finally replaced by the new professional keyword module based on Google/Bing advertising with the highest CTRs and income from advertisers.

So, I’m done with discussing this topic…

However, I hope that the management team has learned from this discussion…

Changing the rules without notification (as replacement of these ads from top to bottom, and changing title/text seize) is not the way to go… Also, asking for feedback while not responding to it (or participating in the discussion) and just making a decision without any reasoning why is also not the way to go.

So, I’m eagerly waiting for a management team response. If again my comments are not being taken seriously… this was my last post.

1 Like