AndrewForson wrote:It might pose a threat to Wikipedia, but only by being an even bigger threat to the whole concept of knowledge than Wikipedia is already: by being like Wikipedia, only worse in every respect. There is no single way in which Everipedia is more likely to produce a reliable compendium of human knowledge than Wikipedia, and some in which it is much less so. Foolish or even futile though the standards of Wikipedia may be for inclusion of topics and sources, Everipedia is much much worse. It proposes to pay people in cryptocurrency with no obvious model for where the real value backing that currency will come from: that payment will have apparent value precisely until there's a serious attempt to spend it, and then it will be revealed as a bubble. Fortunately the whole enterprise is so inept and misguided that it is most unlikely to gain any traction. I'm astonished that Larry Sanger should choose to be associated with it.
There's no apparent value behind Bitcoin but it's still worth thousands of dollars.
Plus you can cash out anytime and spend IQ points in your local currency. There's an exchange dedicated to EOS projects called Chaince that I recommend, where you can see the price of the IQ token in EOS (which you can exchange for local currency).
Along with earning rewards by editing, if hypothetically you were to buy $1000, at time of writing is 0.0034 EOS ($0.027) or less if you can get it now the market's stabilized a bit, and then thousands of people join up in the next week (or months) and start writing thousands of new, quality articles, that price might moon up to 0.01 EOS ($0.08) and you would have made $2,723 profit from trading.