My sense is that the price of a token will rise as a topic gains attention and people desire to affect where attention is directed in a certain topic (demand for curation power instead of ad dollars). In an early stage market, a really good curator can have a large effect on token price (which seems to be by design), but in really large topics (for example, if there was an r/DonaldTrump), single curators will lose the ability to move the market on their own (unless they have a ridiculous amount of tokens staked on their curation), and instead ownership of curation tokens will be seen more as speculation on the future of that topic, given that larger topics don’t automatically fracture into smaller tokens (further on this point, do you think that a natural equilibrium topic size will arise? Instead, will tokens sprout hierarchies, with certain tokens nested under a broader parent, such as Donald Trump -> (Russia, Jared Kushner, New Healthcare Bill), where there is the exchange rate between these tokens fluctuates in regards to their relative importance?)
I would assume the the sum of the market caps of all sub topics will be greater than the parent topic, since they have relevance outside of the parent as well. Would this be an implicit or explicit hierarchy? (aka tokens connected by markets vs programmatic hierarchies like OOP).
Do you believe that even if single curators lose their ability to move the market, stake in said market will still provide the intended incentives? At the point, do we view these markets as hybrid speculation /advertisement vehicles, enabling both price discovery and the purchase of attention?