I've always thought referral programs are kind of shameless and undignified. A service or network pays existing contributors or members to spread the word and help get new sign-ups. It seems unnatural too, since the implication is that people aren't already excited about the service or network in question and need to be induced to participate.
I'd like to propose a referral program for Yours. However, it's different from the standard model. Instead of Yours needing to keep a "referral" fund at the ready, to be lavished upon existing members when new ones they've reffered sign up, the community itself will create the rewards.
When signing up, new members could answer the following question: Were you told about Yours by any existing members? Entering the names of these members will allow their names to appear on the new sign-up's first (introductory) post, immediately below the title of that post. These entries must result in auto-completing, or else be searched for manually upon entry, so that the names themselves can be entered correctly, because those names are to become clickable links on this introductory post.
The established member who refers the newcomer earns no crypto automatically. There is no referral fund that has to be maintained. Rather, the newcomer's introductory post merely reveals to all who see it that there were other established members who are being credited with referring the newcomer. If these readers so choose, they may opt to tip this established member for their referral efforts. Or not, if they so choose. But the established members gets recognition, if nothing else, and this can be important for solidifying a sense of community.
So, by removing the DIRECT payment incentive that is common to referral programs, and replacing it instead with a direct recognition incentive, combined with the potential for community driven tips, a reward system emerges which manages to preserve a sense of community connection and, hopefully, avoids creating perverse incentives.
@Ryan X. Charles
2 of 2 reviewers say it's worth paying for
0 of 2 reviewers say it's not worth paying for