New keyword consumption model!

Dear Presearchers,

We are happy to announce that the “PRE token consumptive feature” tied to keyword staking is here.

Now, for just 0.066% per day, or approximately 2% monthly, your keyword ad can secure a prime spot at the top of the search results page.

Keyword staking can be accessed at https://keywords.presearch.com/

Interested in learning more? Check out the Keyword Staking platform, as well as read our full document here: What is Keyword Staking? - Presearch Docs

1 Like

As predicted the team implements a system not thoughtfully designed and without taking any recommendations or consideration from the community.

Garbage and shows the team is not learning from past mistakes.

All this will do is drastically reduce keyword stakes. It is the opposite of a competitive advertising system. All people will do is reduce their stakes to 100 unlocking millions staked and putting that back into circulation or selling it. This reduces competition on the staked side because they are bottom views anyway and a 100 stake paying 2% will now get way better views than a million staked winner take all shown at the bottom. They literally destroyed a great USP and will take way less income than they otherwise could have.

We tried to tell the team a better way but they just don’t listen to the community because apparently they know better.

Stupidity!

hello, even 2% does not represent a great profit depending on the amount of stake, it is the model that the team considered the best option taking into account that the keywords were free for 6 years, continue evaluating how it progresses And if some adjustments have to be made, they will be done.

I think that’s a bit of an exaggerated assumption. Those who really want to stay at the top of the results will pay the subscription, You can still have words with 100 pre and be at the top

-Keeping staking at the bottom eliminates a USP for Presearch.

-Making only winner take all on staking eliminates the amount of stakes you could otherwise have on each keyword.

-Making staking integrally tied to consumptive eliminates massive amounts of consuption you could otherwise have. As you now have to meet the max stake to even have the option to pay consumptively.

-No improvements for the staking experience or tracking. No simple fixes or adds that were suggested almost 2 years ago and again recently. Its almost like you want the community to give up on this project.

The overall changes for keywords reduce the potential for stakes, reduce the potential for what consumption could have been, eliminates a USP (by making stakes at the bottom) and makes another USP potentially unusable by many users at least on very high stakes. So yes overall I still think the changes were not well thought out, the team made their own decision without listening to the community or taking any feedback. A lazy attempt to create consumptive ads. Very frustrating.

Hello, as discussed in discord the system remains the same, effectively the keyword with the highest amount of stake wins the only difference added was the possibility of paying 0.066% daily of the value of the stake for the ad to rise to the top of the search results, this represents a good income opportunity for Presearch taking into account that it had been free in the last 6 years or so, it is not ruled out that more changes may come regarding how the stake is managed but for the moment is the addition of charging the consumption fee.

The Team seems to be celebrating this new consumptive keyword addition. It is great that a consumptive use has finally been enabled but I am less than thrilled by the execution and lack of attention to community suggestions.

We have been discussing a new model for almost 2 years and when I learned the team was actually going to build something I started this dedicated thread back in Jan to provide input and ideas for a more successful rollout. You can see that here.

Now that we know a bit of the details of this rollout its time to be critical and look at the model and if the communities suggestions would be better for all.

What I understand about this new current model with consumptive utility:

  1. It is exactly the same as the old staking with winner takes all. Only the highest stake will be viewed and when we say viewed the team has moved those ads to the bottom of the organic page results so IMHO it is not getting viewed and destroys a once GREAT USP for the project. A USP that allows anyone from the community to actually stake and provide a better search result for the users that may otherwise never be seen due to other search providers censorship. Also it could be used as free advertising and sometimes had non-relevant JV ads.

  2. No changes were added or updates to improve usability for advertisers (stakers or consumptive it is exactly the same as before).

  3. In order to actually pay PRE consumptively for an ad to move from the bottom of the organic search results to the top spot you now must be the highest stake on any given keyword. In some cases this is only 100 PRE and not a big deal in others tens or hundreds of thousands of PRE would be required to stake first before you could even PAY the Treasury anything. This is a huge problem as you are in many cases with competitive keywords locking out many potential consumptive bids.

  4. The cost of getting your ad viewed is = highest stake amount + a 2% /month consumptive fee.

  5. The consumptive fee is a flat rate of PRE based on the stake so in cases of low viewed keywords this may provide more income to the project but at the expense of a much higher cost than the advertiser is able to get value from. In this case due to the thoughtless rollout some advertisers will feel ripped off and leave never to return and certainly won’t be referring anyone to PREsearch losing a potential customer.
    In other cases with very high viewed keywords the advertisers may be getting a steal of a deal and not have very much competition. But without competition and a more competitive well developed model PREsearch is leaving way too much money on the table than they otherwise would earn.

//
So how do we fix these flaws bringing back a POWERFUL anti-censorship USP. Great competitive ad sandtable for staking combined with a competitive consumptive bidding model all competing for the top spot.

If you read my previous posts I laid this out. The basics are a winner takes most staking model with a reasonable 1-time fee for every new stake (people should pay something for the benefit of getting viewed in the top spot).
Combine this with a separate Consumptive bidding option again winner takes most. Whereby both staking and bidding are competing for the same top spot. or #2 spot if the team develops other better income producing ad options in the future. Of note if there is no stakes on a keyword the consumptive gets 100% of views and vice versa. If there are both stakes and consumptive bids the views are split in a percentage that benefit the consumption of PRE.

The below is an example of how this would work with all the relevant assumptions. I will post comparative results for a low 1k views /month assumption, 10k /month, and 100k /month.

As you can see from this 1k assumption in a good case the advertiser is incurring an extremely high cost per thousand views (CPM) of $26 and in a worst case scenario with only a 100 stake a crazy good CPM of $0.05 or only 2 PRE. The inconsistency even with zero competition is horrible. But you will notice in both scenarios my recommended model brings in more income or PRE to the Treasury and does it in a fair and consistent way. Although on the bidding side in a good case my model underperforms the blanket 2% fee by 23 PRE the 1-time staking fees of 2000 PRE more than covers the difference. And this does not make a potential advertising client feel ripped off.

From here forward my model destroys what the team has devised in terms of consistency, fairness, and importantly INCOME. On a single keyword producing 10k views a month my model earns anywhere from 1161.85 (worst case) to 10769.71 (good case) more PRE than the teams inconsistent model. If the CMP needs to be a lower minimum you could lower it dramatically and still beat the teams model.

In this 100k views /month example my model produces far superior results. Beating the team model by 11546 PRE (worst case) and 98,697 PRE (good case) income to treasury on a single keyword.
I should also note that this model restores the once great keyword staking USP and locks up in stakes potentially 64k more PRE again on a single keyword.

Imagine testing 5 variations of ads on a single keyword for comparison stats then using that to determine your best strategy for consumptive bids. This model lets everyone even the small guy get a fair amount of views. This lets small guys compete with the big players leveling the playing field. It lets consumption of any minimal amount potentially beat someone with hundreds of thousands of PRE staked encouraging stakers to participate in the consumptive bidding and vice versa.

Now imagine the potential volume during an election year on keywords like Trump, Biden, RFK, BTC, Bitcoin, etc. I could see single keywords getting not tens but hundreds of stakes and bids at crucial times. The team’s model would leave all that on the table. This is a single dev project that has massive future potential and does not prevent the team from exploring other ad options like my other ideas for ad slot ownership for locations and different types of ads.

The great thing about this model once developed and launched is it will more than pay for itself over time scales with user growth and can be easily tweaked to raise or lower the CPM minimum or change the percentages to better support all parties.

Lastly, this model does not completely fix the JV ad problem but the most competitive stakers and bids would get the majority of views likely being the most professional. This also ensures diversity of ads seen by users instead of the same ads all the time. So although not a complete fix definitely a much improved user experience, that still allows for anyone to easily participate. And that last part is the KEY and a huge differentiator from the corrupt Google and Bings!

3 Likes


If my recommended model is built it becomes very easy to change costs, percentages, or fees over time to improve outcomes and competitiveness of the system. In this example I added a 20% FIAT transaction fee and changed the view percentages when both consumption and stakes are on the same keyword. In the excel table you can see the number of views each staker and bidder would get and the PRE and/or FIAT income to the project. Which would be substantially more than the current system even if the minimum CPM was lowered.

Payments page
I previously recommended a payments page that could be used for all transactions, swag, PREberry purchases, etc. This payments page would have a payment option for PRE, earned PRE, or FIAT.

-PRE: this is self explanatory you use available PRE for payments and transactions.

-Earned PRE: This would give users who have earned PRE from searches or referrals the opportunity to use that PRE on the platform instead of waiting to gain enough to withdraw (this could be used for any consumptive cost like AI access or consumptive bids but would not be eligible for staking). In this case the amount of PRE they have accrued could then be spent down to 0 getting value from their earned PRE now while simultaneously reducing future obligations to Presearch.

-FIAT: If using FIAT a 20% transaction fee could be charged over the PRE cost. This 20% minus banking transaction fees and/or exchange fees is additional profit to PREsearch and incentivizes use of the PRE token.

To be perfectly clear this is different than the old PRE purchase program where users were able to purchase PRE directly from Presearch. In this case Presearch is simply charging a fee to go out and potentially purchase tokens on the open market for use on the platform either for goods or services. This is an important distinction from a securities and regulatory perspective because Presearch is not technically selling their own tokens to individuals. They are simply providing a service and utility.

The FIAT option would give non-crypto users the opportunity to take advantage of the Presearch ecosystem by using a debit/credit card. They could use the stake or consumptive bid or AI features. For stakes this would require PRE so upon confirmation of FIAT payment +20% fee that amount of PRE including the stake fee would be automatically purchased on public exchanges by Presearch. Once the purchase is confirmed Presearch could use the Treasury to move PRE to the users account minus the stake fee for access to immediate utility. Because this model is winner takes most if outbid they would still get value for the stake and would now have access to PRE on the platform should they choose to un-stake. Since the exact amount of PRE required for the Stake + Stake fee was purchased on exchanges this would dramatically increase the volumes for PRE token opening token use and volume to non-crypto players. Any profit from the 20% fee after banking and exchange fees could go to purchase addition PRE on the exchanges. Then batch transfers could be made for cheap to replenish the treasury daily.

As for consumptive bids the user should have the option to choose either a straight FIAT option meaning they will get the CPM pricing they paid for and their ad will be added to the bids for their selected keywords. The 20% FIAT fee minus the credit card banking fee becomes profit and would allow more PRE to be purchased on exchanges. If they selected the FIAT to crypto option the same process would take place as in the staking and the PRE would be sent to the users wallet to be paid out as per the bid when views occur. At anytime they could move or withdraw the PRE and their consumptive keyword bidding would end. The pro and con of this FIAT to crypto option for consumptive bids would be if PRE price appreciates it would require less PRE to pay the ongoing consumptive fee. However, if the price dips it may require more PRE for the views and run out quicker. There is also flexibility of having the PRE on the platform to adjust or move to a keyword stake.

This system similar to search and node rewards would consume more PRE if price declines and less PRE as price appreciates. For consumptive ad bidders having the straight FIAT option removes volatility for professional advertisers ensuring a more consistent CPM to ensure profit margins from advertising remain steady. Stakes on the other hand should only be available in PRE or FIAT to PRE. When advertisers or anti-censorship users see the power of keyword staking in conjunction with bidding they will likely use both options pending the competition and value proposition increasing PRE volume, locked PRE, as well as wanting to bring more users to the platform.

2 Likes

Another potential issue with current Keyword consumptive model that limits income is that it requires the user to keep a balance in their main PRE wallet. If you are constantly using max stake to increase stakes on nodes or search staking or you utilize all PRE in main wallet for new keywords and happen to bring the balance to 0 without thinking about it. You auto-remove your consumptive keywords. Advertiser loses views and Presearch loses potential income.

A better solution is to create a separate debit account. This way if you had a set amount you wanted to use for all your ads you move it into the debit account and all ongoing ad costs would be drawn from that account. Likewise allowing the earned PRE (usage rewards) account from searches and referrals should also be another option for consumptive uses. This would allow you to use your main wallet as we always have while not worrying about leaving PRE in that main wallet for consumptive ads.

//

Building this sub-account option and/or the use of the earned PRE (usage rewards) could also then be used for auto upbidding to your max stake/bid amounts on keywords if my previously outlined model is adopted. If both the usage and a sub account it would draw from usage rewards first then any additional costs would start drawing from the debit sub account. If both are empty then the consumptive keyword would end. You could also give the users the option to set low balance warning on the debit sub account so they can remind themselves to top it off.

All this does is improve the user and advertisers options to have a more consistent reliable payment option to Presearch. Presearch would get more consistent use and payments.
//
Why update Keywords: Utility, value to users/advertisers, and profit.

A Keyword model that easily scales with users, creates USPs, is fair, maximizes competition, and increases income potential creates a sustainable foundation to build on. Adding a FIAT option is in alignment with other crypto projects like CSPR Casper Labs which is including an option for Software as a Service (SaaS) so that either Caspr Labs or a third party can do the crypto handling on behalf of clients like IBM who without regulatory clarity don’t feel comfortable yet holding or using crypto tokens. This is exactly what I am advocating for to allow all players big and small utilize the platforms USPs. Obviously this would mean developing these USPs and the payments page and relations with UNI or exchanges to make this all work. But the transaction volume if you build the right utilities and open it up to the non-crypto world could be massive.

Regarding profit and sustainability, the Treasury pays out ~12k per day in search rewards and ~183k+ per day in node rewards. This is not including airdrops or kucoin staking or LP staking rewards. However, if my Keyword model is adopted, even with a reduction of the recommended min Cost Per thousand views (CPM) from $3 down to 1$ this model still has the potential with a single great competitive keyword to more than offset the daily search rewards currently being paid out. Between all the potential keywords staking and bidding, this model could eventually provide a great offset to all the PRE outflows. Granted ad demand would be much more sporadic than the daily outflows but this provides a great usable foundation to build on (sometimes it will be a trickle others it could be a flood). When you combine this initiative with other utilities like AI access, purchasing swag, Communities, and other ad opportunities Presearch could become NET positive with PRE inflows allowing for better growth and reward incentives or sold on the market for income.

1 Like