I’ve started to feel a bit 50/50 about monetising mixes on dSound. Essentially, when you make a mix for profit, you’re licensing tracks from artists, labels, and everyone is part of the remuneration chain. On dSound, when you put a mix up, you’re essentially cutting the artists and labels out of the picture but still taking a cut. You’ve obviously come to this conclusion when thinking about remixes as it is pretty much the same thing.

I’ve seen other platforms tackle their licensing woes. On Musicoin, you can negotiate a cut with the relevant artists and have a contractual split built into your upload, documented on the blockchain. Each artist gets a cut.

This also applies to mixes, their caveat is that the individual music must exist on there on its own first. That limits your resources somewhat. This does go some way towards the solution you are speaking about.

Licensing is definitely going to be the big challenge of dSound and dLive, as there is pretty much no way to enforce a dispute at the moment bar someone coming in with more flagging power than whoever has uploaded. Even then, that’s just a visibility takedown.

Also, these things need more than a seven day earnings window. Music is there to mature like a fine wine. If you go onto my Musicoin tracks, you listen, I get a coin, doesn’t matter that it was uploaded two months ago.

As such, Steem has some stiff competition from the dedicated music blockchains that exist. I’m not sure whether this can be solved by forking but it feels like it requires fundamental changes to the mechanics to Steem as it is right now.