Tokenomics and Minimum PRE price ($0.07)

Most of you know that this “project” has been funded so far via the ICO receipts (October 2017) and (net) minting of 500M PRE tokens.

This “war chest” of PRE and cash (BTC/ETH ICO receipts) was being used to develop and set up the current PRE platform and ecosystem. In short… in simple terms… most of the PRE tokens were used to pay PRE rewards for node operators and search/affiliate rewards, and the “cash” for other expenses such as staff, hosting (central gateways), marketing, development, etc.

So, after almost 6 years, it’s no wonder that the war chest is reaching the “empty status”, especially as long as the expenses exceed the revenues.

For example, the daily PRE rewards were reaching 400K PRE per day (300K for nodes and 100K for searches).

As I don’t know how much is left in PRE tokens and cash, let’s assume that the cash is running out and that the “company” still holds 50M PRE tokens (for the purpose of my proposal, the exact level isn’t that important).

Also notice that the project needs to have a “reservation” for assigned PRE search/affiliate rewards “hold” by users who haven’t reached the 1,000 withdrawal threshold as sooner or (and after the reward cut… much) later these PRE have to be paid out (if threshold is reached).

With Tim and his team on board, the focus has now shifted to become “sustainable” with a positive cash flow, positive “economics” (revenues exceeding expenses), and positive tokenomics.

So far the intro… now let’s look at the role of the PRE token.

Until now, the PRE rewards were (almost fully) been paid out from the war chest, resulting in more tokens coming into circulation with inflationary effect on the token price.

This negative effect has to stop… and by continuing the current system, sooner or later the full war chest of PRE tokens would be fully used (all tokens in circulation, and the project holds no PRE anymore).

Hence, it’s kind of logical that the (new) team tries to cut down on the expenses and high “giving away” of PRE tokens for search rewards and node operator rewards.

By cutting down the search rewards for users with 90%, a major step has been implemented (also by expanding the time needed to reach the threshold… freeing up the PRE reservation number).

With respect to the node staking rewards… a 7.5% (further) dollar “cut-down” for each month “as long as needed” has been announced.

But Tim’s idea (afaik) is to still fund the PRE rewards from the remaining war chest, or if empty by minting more PRE tokens and bring these into circulation (the idea is to keep this as low as possible, also by improving the “economics”).

Also, part of the (advertising) revenues 1-20% will be used for PRE buybacks. But for me it’s not clear if the buybacks are used for paying out the search and node rewards?

So, I still foresee an inflation in more PRE tokens coming in circulation…

How can we really stop this inflation?

Well, very simple by just not using the current war chest “leftover” at all (or minting new tokens).

Instead, the project treats the current (assumed 50M) PRE tokens as absolute “minimum” to hold (again the project should hold a number for above described reservation anyway).

Of course, this means that to pay for PRE rewards… that the (daily) PRE needed for search and node rewards should be bought on the open market.

Actually, as the PRE price is below the used minimum of $0.07 as used to determine the number of daily PRE rewards for node stakers, the “project” makes a profit by buying for 3 cents, and “using” these to pay for the rewards but calculating as if the PRE price is 7 cents.

So, instead of actually paying $20k per day for node staking… it will pay only 3/7th (about $9K).

Or to say it in other words…

The team believes in the project and “refuses” to “give away” PRE tokens below $0.07. That’s a very positive signal. But by actually buying the daily needed PRE tokens on the open market… this signal is much “stronger”… and as side-effects…

A) the difference between purchased price and the used 7 cents is actually taken as a profit, and results in actual lower daily dollar expenses (something new VC would love to see).

B) the price of the PRE token will quickly reach the 7 cents level as there is this daily buys on the open market while the majority of node stakers will just accumulate the rewards and re-stake them.

C) if the price recovers to 7 cents and increases further… the team may decide to higher this 7 cents to for example 10 cents… etc.

It’s just to good to be true… it looks like price “manipulation”… but all the team has to do is announcing that as long as the PRE token price is below a certain level (current the 7 cents) that it will buy the daily needed PRE tokens for rewards on the open market… and that the team “calculates” with a minimum price (they think the token should be valued at)…

Of course, the market determines the token price… but with daily hundreds of thousands of PRE buying pressure… with the current low liquidity… the effects should be visible quickly.

Of course, “cash” is needed to purchase the PRE tokens on the open market… but as explained… it shouldn’t be hard to convince any VC that the money is spent wisely to lower actual expenses by taking profit of the “price difference” of actual bought PRE price and used calculated/set minimum price.

Note: if the PRE token price “returns” to $0.07… the node operators will see a more than doubling of their current APYs… offsetting the 7.5% reduction(s).

Hence, everyone is happy with this proposed “standard daily buy program of needed PRE tokens on the open market as long as the price is below a certain price”. It stops the inflation immediately and results in upward buying price “pressure”.

Of course, there will be a point where the token price has increased that much that investors (including node stakers) do want to take their profits… but I think there is sufficient “room” for price appreciation as a result of my proposal.


I think that the team wants to spend new capital on new dev members, marketing specialist and marketing. If you spent the cash on buying tokens you miss other opportunities. To me they are more important for Presearch.
Also current dollar value of node rewards is often considered the most important. But for some pre holders and node operators like me current price of pre is not really important (only the number of pre). I would like to see a) high pre value in in the bull market b) much better - in the long term. So you don’t need to wait for a moment to sell pre at the hight of the bull market which is easy to miss anyway. This is possible only with organic growth in Presearch adoption.
That’s why I think it’s more important now to spend capital on dev of the project and marketing.

1 Like

Its no surprise the $PRE token is in trouble. Most old crypto project reached this point at some time.

$PRE is supplied to users via search rewards and node rewards.
Some $PRE demand is created via node staking and keyword staking.

Its not transparent, because its not on-chain, but I think supply >>> demand.
The $PRE economy needs some $PRE sinks, because people won’t stake on keywords when there is no traffic on the site.


I would not say that they are really in a bind, for 6 years presearch has given significant amounts of rewards both in searches and in nodes And of course, as every project needs financing and income to survive, that is why the current changes are in the face of this new structure , indeed when everything is in the chain it will be more transparent and we will be able to see that later when cosmos is finished being implemented

On the other hand Presearch is clearly undervalued. Tim said pre could go to 0.22 in a good market in a relatively short period of time. It’s not about the survival of the project. With development and promotion Presearch has bright future.


As previously mentioned token flow will still be inflationary until actual enticing utilities are devised and developed for PRE. As @Quindar calls it sinks, I call it utility, or value propositions for using PRE.

I have given a number of utility ideas none of which are on the roadmap yet which is why I continue to try to reiterate and educate on this fundamental token concern. Yes economics have to be in place but so does tokenomics and token flow. In fact if you improve token flow meaning more tokens are coming into the treasury than going out that actually increases the valuation of PREsearch because those tokens can be used for any number of network requirements (increased rewards, marketing, or even sold on open market to pay for development or legal etc.)

I also have explained we cannot just try to mimic TRAD search providers and we cannot also just mimic other stagnant failed crypto projects either (mostly 1-trick ponies with no real valuable utilities). You have to change the game!

The thing that entices everyone is opportunity, opportunity for income, privacy, better UI, better non-biased results, better AI or more AI options under one roof, more tailored search based on community affiliations, a potential slice of digital advertising space on a growing search platform, and of course the ability to make use of any PRE purchased held or earned, etc.

You change the game by adding lots of income generating opportunities and lots of uses for that PRE generated income. These become the Anchors (like anchor stores at a mall) the more the better. Those will entice many individuals, influencers, entrepreneurs and businesses when they see the potential of the system they can develop and use themselves they will work together to bring the world over as users of that fair and decentralized system that rewards people for the value given to the network. They will benefit themselves from bringing more people to the platform. The new users they bring over will also benefit from a constantly improving better value platform because value will be created every day by thousands of people instead of just a small team of developers (but those opportunities have to be available and currently they are not). Presearch obviously benefits from all of this because once the concepts/anchors are built they are utilities, ‘sinks’, free-marketing, value, and massive income to Presearch.

Do you think Amazon destroyed the competition by building everything themselves for themselves selling their own products themselves? No they simply built the anchors the platform that the world could use and yes PROFIT from and they collectively brought the world over giving the users of the platform WAY more value and opportunity than any other company of its kind that has come before it. Presearch needs to focus on building the anchors.

The only “anchors” I see on PREsearch are Nodes (net cost), search rewards(net cost), and at some point keywords (the only one that could provide PRE income but is far off due to low users and searches).

I am suggesting build the anchors/concepts that can create net PRE income to the project first, because they will get the project to equilibrium of token flow fastest making the biggest expenses for the project sustainable. This also becomes free-marketing, free organic user and search growth, protects the project for regulatory overreach because if these utilities are built out and being used and further expanded by the community that is no longer relying on Presearch they are relying on their own efforts and other users that see value in their efforts.

So, and who is paying for the node operators and search rewards? Someone has to pay for these… Yes, you can mint 100M tokens in the coming year and use these for these PRE payments… this way the token investors pay themselves via inflated PRE, i.e. minted PRE… or to say it in other words… the PRE price decreases 20% and the current investors (node operators) got 20% more tokens…

The whole idea is that the project becomes sustainable such that all expenses can be paid from income…

You know if the team just buys for one or two weeks the daily necessary PRE for these rewards… the token price is back at 7 cents… and this will give a very strong signal to the market and increases trust in the new team…


If your project only works if your token is at a specifc price your tokenomics are broken.

I think we understand Presearch needs moeny to operate.
But its quite hard to come up with ideas when $PRE is not transparent. Imo the discussion makes no sense unless someone posts real numbers.

In any case, I think creating more $PRE when the token is already down is not a good idea.


.07 has nothing to do with - why it is being focused on is a mystery other than the accounting oddity described above.

This isn’t rocket science - the price of PRE basically does not matter so long as we are currently at or near the floor.

The project has historically had little revenue and wasted tons of time and resources on the wrong things (eg too much focus on getting nodes, preberries, nfts, fighting scammers with brute force vs economic modeling, etc). As a result this project is effectively valued at 0 by the wider crypto market. We literally have a binary situation where we will either go to 0 or multiples higher than here. Thankfully we now have a person in charge who is singularly focused on one thing: money in needs to meet or exceed money out.

Most can agree on this idea. There is no magic crypto money machine. Magic money machine means either inflation or new money needed to pay out old - we do not want or need either of those scenarios. Instead we need to extract and enhance the value intrinsic to what exists already in the project.

There two main areas of intrinsic value: infrastructure and users. I’ll leave infrastructure for another day. What are the users worth? Users are worth something to advertisers but it depends on conversion. I ran some pretty high value keywords for about 6 months - the conversions were dismal though admittedly they were not high quality ads.

Therefore, I am not sure about the quality of the user base in a conversion sense. We will likely need to increase the conversion quality of the user base. This will in simplistic terms mean that presearch search needs to get as good as google in terms of UX, which it currently is not. This is where further capital raises will come in such that the right dev talent can be hired to get us closer to that goal.

Once we have a positive cash flow, we will enter a virtuous cycle. We will actually have (potentially) a deflationary token AND a project that is seen as both “crypto” (not really but ok) and a proven real world business model. That will also need to get priced into the current value of the token. In short we have more ways to win than to lose, but of course, either is possible.


It depends on what you focus the Dev talent to build out into MVPs. You are absolutely correct that if you continue trying to mimic google you will sink good money into those devs and either always need more new money or inflate the token to cover those expenses to try to keep up with the biggest search providers in the world. IMHO NOT a smart strategy but a losing strategy you need billions not millions to try to compete with Google and Bing at their own game. You have to change the game but that means we have to think differently and act differently.

Instead of trying to beat Google at it’s own game I think the focus should be on the Roadmap. Yes many of the things on there are important and needed and so is economics but what is lacking are the development of game changing opportunities (your anchor stores or unique product lines). These once built are no longer a cost to the project but instead become INCOME, income in PRE and or $s. The more anchors/product line opportunities you build they become USPs, motes, and income generators for the community, investors, and the network. These begin to generate and sustain or scale the rewards these also generate buzz, free marketing, user and entrepreneur adoption and more quality searches. This in my opinion is how you get positive cash flow the right way. It is a matter of what you focus the development on either mimicking Google or Unique opportunities only available on Presearch at least until the others have to switch to our tactics and our game or continue to lose. Either way Presearch becomes the platform that showed the way and should get credit and support for breaking an old paradigm that used the people, their money, and data to only benefit the corporations. People innately realize this and are looking for something new they are looking for a better opportunity we just have to give it to them.

Amazon didn’t become the world largest retailer by trying to compete with Walmart and the other retail behemoths at their own game. It became #1 because it first focused intensely on building a platform of value and opportunity for all. meaning they invited the world to sell and make a living on their platform and when the world saw the opportunity they came over 1 by 1 then flooded in and participated. Their participation created a much better and wider array of products under one roof which brought the users of the world with them and everyone uses it today because it was built differently and is better.

Presearch needs to do the same but in the search space invite the world to participate in a freer fairer platform by first building those anchors 1 by 1 (it was initially books for Amazon but quickly morphed into many product-lines to where now you can buy almost anything on Amazon) and they will come and use the platform to better their own lives and they will bring the world of users. The money will come slowly then snowball and everyone participating will win especially Presearch and early adopters.

The minimum $0.07 has more effects than “accounting oddity”…

If the team doesn’t want to release new tokens under the price of 7 cents as that’s kind of giving away the war chest tokens for too low prices…

This is a positive signal… “this is the minimum the token price should be”.

But by using this minimum price… for the calculation and payouts of node rewards… it has a significant effect if the actual PRE price is lower than the “set” minimum.

You know… with a current price of 3 cents (rounded for simplicity), the project is not paying out $20K daily but only 3/7th of this amount. Or to say it in other words… node operators “only” get about $9K.

(You may even conclude that the team prefers a lower PRE price as it reduces actual “dollar” expenses, and lowers the number of tokens coming into circulation)

With as result that for the actual node searches rewards (not the staking part), the average node staker will get 2 PRE day as reward (with current PRE price of 3 cents about $2 per month).

This is to cover the actual VPS cost to run the node… forcing stakers to search for “cheap” and often lower quality VPSs.

And with the upcoming $1500 monthly reductions, the dollar income will be 7.5% lower each month… accelerating the replacements of “expensive/quality” nodes into “cheap/low quality” nodes, and distribution among a few VPS “suppliers”, having a negative effect on decentralization and increasing risk of “dependence” of this small group of VPS suppliers.

This is an unwanted side-effect of the low PRE price… which is that low for many reasons but the token inflation is one main source.

And if running nodes becomes “less profitable”… stakers will stop and often sell their tokens with additional price pressure.

In my proposal, I wanted to stop the “inflation”, increase the token price, increase the “trust”, give node stakers higher income, and keep the quality and decentralized distribution of the network nodes at higher levels.

Now, everyone has his own thoughts about how “available funds” should be spent… but we all agree that the investments in either product development, marketing, staff, etc. should lead in the end to a positive cashflow and positive (token and Inc) economics.

But if 99% of all revenues stays in the Inc, and only 1% is used to buy tokens on the free market, and in the mean time all paid out PRE for search and node rewards are paid from the war chest leftover or newly minted tokens… the inflationary price pressure will exist… and the tokenomics won’t improve.

It’s just easier for the Inc to make money as network expenses are paid by the token holders themselves…

So, I really don’t like this distribution model of revenues where just 1% (with a maximum of 20%) is “leaving” the Inc, and comes back to the token holders community.

Let alone, that it’s undecided yet what the team is going to do with these acquired tokens.

In accordance to the White and Vision paper, a substantial part should be used to distribute to node operators (30% vs 1%).

And that’s another reason for my proposal to improve the tokenomics as the token holders (and especially node operators) should get a higher piece of the pie…


@Ben i don’t disagree with the math here or the positive benefit something like this would have on the token price.

But unless you fix the underlying problem first, you are throwing good war chest dev and team money at solving a symptom not the problem itself.

I agree 1-20% of income not VC raised funds seems reasonable for the time being as long as the rest of the funds are being converted into PRE utilities that will begin to solve the token flow and income problems for the PREsearch platform.

Once PRE token flow becomes self sustaining then and only then can we start to see what is possible for rewards. I like that they plan to spend some income at these low prices because under .07 as we know gets more for the money. I think they increased the theoretical token supply because we may need all the war chest cash and then some to get to an equilibrium which would mean they could extend runway and time by inflating the token supply without a complete failure of the system. It is an insurance policy also we don’t know long term with mass adoption how well the token velocity will work if low velocity meaning changing hands and moving slowly you may need the other tokens so the platform can be used by everyone.

I do like where your head is at and eventually we need to get to the point where we are not concerned about a price floor because the system works due to the shear amount and quality of PRE utilities have on bringing PRE income back into the treasury (inflows in excess of reward outflows = sustainable and even could increase rewards). This is when the DAO could vote and say the PRE reward pool should be X of the token Inflows.

I’m sorry Ben but literally none of this matters in any meaningful way. You’re trying to argue what the token price “should be” - well its not. Whatever “war chest” value Presearch may have thought it had should have (probably has) been written down. The market is the market.

You and others here keep raising concern about supposed high quality nodes being replaced with lower quality. We simply do not currently need expensive servers in this network. My nodes get 2 searches per hour currently. Two! That’s obscenely underutilized. Yes this may change, but it is going to be a long time from now before we need to start worrying needing the resources these more expensive servers provide. And that will scale with usage which should mean that the server capacity can actually be paid for. Right now those kind of resources cannot and should not be paid for.

Even at current prices and reward dynamics we are at a 30-50% APY. Break even for Racknerd at these prices and returns is 77 days. Yes, this will be reduced going forward, but the project is cashflow negative, why would anyone be expecting a 30% dividend on a cashflow negative project.

The bottom line is anyone should have been able to cover their server costs if they sized the server properly (eg < 25 dollars a year) and they actually cashed out to at least cover their server costs.

With that said, I suspect most node operators have probably lost money on the over all value of their PRE holdings. This is due to node runner payout necessitated inflation (and extremely poor execution by prior team) - precisely what we are trying to fix.

Only, once meaningful revenue can start coming into the project is the token price going to appreciate. Prioritizing higher performing nodes is NOT the way to bring revenue into this project. The resources are not and cannot be utilized with today’s usage.

Without revenue there is no other way that token price increase can happen in a sustainable way, anything else would just be an accounting gimmick as no real value is being accrued into the project.

1 Like

I didn’t came up with the $0.07 minimum price. The team has set this minimum. Well, if you calculate with this minimum, it’s for a reason… the team doesn’t want to bring new tokens into circulation for a price less than 7 cents… as a result, node operators will get lower PRE rewards if the token price is less than this 7 cents, with as (negative) effect that most node operators will choose now for the same (Racknerd) VPS services… From a decentralized and risk point of view, not the optimal and wanted solution. (You know, also most nodes will run on servers in USA).

I agree that we don’t need 73K nodes, that the current technical server requirements are not that high… but we should go for “real” decentralization. Otherwise the team could just centralize the whole network at AWS or other single provider.

You continue to use high APY numbers… but if the PRE is given from the war chest (or from newly minted tokens)… the node operators will pay for themselves via inflated token prices. The APY maybe is 30%, but what’s it worth if the PRE price will decrease with the same 30%?

I fully agree that we need to increase the revenues and that we can only pay for the node network as long as there is sufficient income.

But node operators (and investors) should get a clear indication what percentage of the revenues will be distributed to them in the future. This was clear in the white and vision paper… now it’s unknown… all we know is the 1% token buyback.

So, we used to have a real-yield token, but now it seems that the revenues stay inside the Inc while the expenses (for the node network) are paid with “free” minted new tokens by the investors themselves.

So, the cutdown in node rewards maybe understandable but without a new ‘horizon” why would you invest in the token and run a node?

This “uncertainty” will keep the token price low.

And open buys even for a short period of time will show trust by the team (and new VC financing).

If the team thinks that the token price is undervalued… why not buy the daily needed PRE tokens for the node rewards on the open market as long as the price is substantially lower than the presumed minimum?

It will probably be “necessary” just for a few weeks to get the price back to this 7 cents.

As a positive result… the current war chest of estimated 50M PRE tokens will increase in value… lowering the risk for new VC… making it easier to attract new capital.

It’s too simple to say that the current war chest has been written off… the market just valuates the project at $15M (500M tokens at 3 cents).

Finally, a cutdown in node rewards and uncertainty about the revenue distribution will lead to stopping node stakers who will sell their tokens, and additional PRE price pressure… causing lower node rewards, etc…

OK, one more remark… it shouldn’t be hard to find investors who want to invest in both the Inc and the PRE token.


I just opened a new node today. I will not stop opening nodes. Now at 58.

The original nodes were stated as needing 512MB RAM and 10GB HDD. This is lest than 25% of my nodes. I use 10 VPS vendors. Many are 1GB RAM and 20+GB HDD. Some (25% are 2GB RAM and 30-80 GB HDD. Mine are NOT all in the US, I have nodes in India, Russia, EU, AS, CAN and across the US (not just NY and CA).

My singular goal is accumulation because I believe firmly in Presearch. My AVG node cost is under $2 month.

IPFS, which is a HUGE step forward for node roles, is slated for THIS year will require a minimum of 250MB RAM and Presearch itself uses on avg 250 (from what I see). 512 MB will not run well and will rely on swap files.

I hope the guy using Preseearch in India appreciates the low latency my node provides. I also hope Presearch recognizes the added expense and nodes with higher RAM and HDD capacities will be compensated. They can reduce the “across the board” “$20k” by $1500 starting 9/1 and again 10/1, 11/1 and that would be 7.5%, 8.1% and 8.8% for a total of 24.4% and at $.03 im still in the clear. Even again would be an additional 9.6% if you do the math. At THAT point im still a hair above “break even” at $.03 PRE.

I’ll say it again for those in the back. I will not stop opening nodes. Period. Because I believe in the future of Presearch.

IF (I would hope) they decide to pay a minimal increase to nodes capable of running IPFS along side of Presearch with a certain capacity HDD/SSD storage, THAT would make the most sense and keep those even on the fence from shutting down nodes or transitioning them all to super cheapos, while supporting higher quality and more distributed nodes.

My $.03 worth … :slight_smile:

1 Like

I admire your dedication and commitment to help the project with a decentralized node network.

However, most node “farmers”, don’t look at the decentralization effects and don’t want to run their nodes via 10 different VPS providers (too much time to manage). They “stick” to the “cheapest and easiest” to manage VPS providers.

First, about your calculations…

Starting with the $20K budget that will be decreased every month (for as long as “needed”) with $1,500.

The first cut is 7.5% ($1.5K/$20K) and the next cuts are based on the same dollar amount of $1,500…

So, the next decrease with as startpoint the lower $18.5K will lead to your calculated 8.1% further decrease (1.5/18.5). But this doesn’t mean that after 2 months that the total decrease was 15.6%.

No, the total decrease was 15% (2x 7.5%), $17K vs the original $20K.

So, it doesn’t matter if you calculate the “drop” from month 1 to month 2, from month 2 to 3, etc. to get the exact monthly “decrease” percentage.

What matter is your initial start position that you compare with the new situation.

Counting individual monthly decreases together will lead to the wrong number.

Just as an analogy…

If you buy a token at $100, and the price changes all the time… all what matters is the current (end price)… this will determine your ROI, not the daily/monthly price percentages counted together.

Now, back to your statement that you won’t decrease your nodes… I believe you… but…

My point for this topic is to explain the role of the $0.07 minimum price as used to calculate the actual node rewards in PRE, and how the team can use this “mechanism” to improve the tokenomics.

As the actual PRE price is “unpredictable”, the actual PRE node rewards in dollar value do vary as long as the PRE price is below the $0.07 minimum.

The lower the PRE price… the larger this effect.

You know, if the PRE price is $0.03, the “actual dollar value” paid out to node operators is only 3/7th of $20K.

Now, suppose the PRE price tanks to $0.01 (for example as a result of a crypto “crash”)…

Then the actual node dollar rewards will be less than $3K per day (1/7th of $20K) and the average monthly rewards for the “actual executed node searches part” to cover the VPS costs, will be about $0.60 per month (2 PRE per day x 30 days x 0.01).

And these numbers do apply for the current $20K daily budget, not taking into account the upcoming monthly $1.5K reductions.

And this is what I meant with…

“a cutdown in node rewards and uncertainty about the revenue distribution will lead to stopping node stakers who will sell their tokens, and additional PRE price pressure… causing lower node rewards, etc…”

The “uncertainty” has to do with the actual PRE price and $0.07 used minimum calculation price, and possible “acceleration” effect if the PRE price decreases further.

You right about my math! My bad, should have donethe dollar calc.

On the quote above, this is 100% guessing and is completely irrelevant at this point.

I also believe after speaking with many in TG channels there are more of “me types” than “node farmers”. I could be wrong on this also as it is guessing. But, i will also say that many “node farmers” also share my same thinking regarding accumulation after speaking with some that have MANY times the amountof nodes as I do. I just happen to be willing to go the extra mile. Sure, you can buy a block of say 100 ips from one company in one location. I simply choose not to. Again will they perform enough to support upcoming new node roles? Doubtful, so these same “node farmers” you speak of might actually be inclined to upgrade some of their cheapos. It’s ALL guessing at this point.

We have no choice but to put our thoughts out there and trust in the current team which i think is fantastic. Some decicsions may have seemed rushed but sometimes that is neccessary. I’m ok with that as anything can change at any moment including reversal of what SOME may see as a bad choice or decision. The new Road Map is fantastic and the “weekly wins” are piling up.

More users/legit searches solves EVERYTHING and I know they are focused on that.

With all that said… focus on the part where you said they started with books and books only.

They were damn good at it. So the “anchor” for Presearch is all about the search. The quality, the UX with already built in “keyword staking” so users can “earn money”. Build the best online book store or search engine and they will “come”. Once theyv’e “come” THEN you can start opening up other “things” just like Amazon.

The total focus should be in getting them “here”. We DON’T need a billion searches a day but 20 mil? 50 mil? Those are game changer numbers.

IMO you have presented MANY great proposals and ideas, but I think its (as usual) a numbers games and the key number fir us is searches.

The new teams and additional hires have only had 30 days max and a lot of it has probably been paperwork but the “weekly wins” are piling up. I don’t even believe they have reached full throttle yet. Seems it will be fast and it’s exviting. Just think more time (much) is needed to see real results. 90 days I think is very fair to look back and comapre.

I agree with you on nearly everything you just said! I also know the team is working hard and love the added completed section with the checkmarks on the roadmap. Great addition BTW.

The two things I am still trying to get across to the community and team is:

  1. Community - The community needs to be a part of the project, decision making, and have buy-in from the core team, so that it remains vibrant and excited and sure about the future of the project. We also need tools to help us sell the concept to new reluctant users. Those tools might be unique offerings or our ability to provide our own resources to give them something of value to get them to try it.

  2. The search engine is as good as the other top providers for results. I never have to use a different search engine to find what I am looking for any more. Could it be improved absolutely! But are the potential improvements going to make it that much better than the competition and that much more noticeable to an average user? Probably NOT and it would cost a ton of time and money to try to get the UX and search results noticeably equal or better than the competition. I just think lots of money and time for marginal improvements are NOT AS IMPORTANT AS developing innovative features.
    examples: like the biggest meta-AI platform that actually WILL IMPROVE search quality and uniqueness over the competition and at the same time bring those AI experts under 1-roof. Or Community search engines owned by an NFT purchased with PRE that those owners can now bring on their audiences as new users with eventually potential for paid subscription options in PRE (this one is on the roadmap just not sure in what form yet). or from a marketing and advertising perspective the sale and individual or corporate ownership of advertising slots that could be broken down into geographic locations and types of ads. This allows big advertisers and the little guys to buy up advertising slots all of which will bring new advertisers and advertising revenue and of course the users that support this fair decentralized platform. Or Keyword consumptive charges this is also on the roadmap for Q1 2024 Great!

When I say “anchors” I mean unique PRE utilities that offer people an opportunity to profit from the platform but that the platform itself is not paying for but rather the users.

Search staking and any other UX improvements are fundamentally different than what I am suggesting as “anchors” or being important adds for the roadmap because these are paid for by PREsearch.

Offering the world the opportunity to launch their AI under Presearch’s 1-roof and allowing the users to pay for that AI as they see fit is an example of bringing the book sellers into your business model the more you bring people into your platform the more enticing your platform becomes to those people and potential users. The the more enticing the AI experts benefit the more you bring the more you bring in the more enticing to users and on… in a virtuous cycle. The user benefits, the AI developer benefits, and the Presearch platform benefits. Win, win, win! Same with Communities, and Ad slots, and PREmium features using consumptive PRE payments. None of these concepts are paid for by presearch other than the development cost but once built they advertise themselves bringing entrepreneurs and users alike along with INCOME. This is how you beat Google and Bing you create opportunity greater than what google and bing are offering and the people and devs and the advertisers will come. Then you have the users and income to actually compete and beat the big centralized guys or force them to play by OUR New Rules.

1 Like