This seems like just another ham-fisted attempt to create more "engagement" or whatever. They've been trying to become the next Facebook for awhile, and still haven't really figured out how to actually monetize their userbase (which is not necessarily a bad thing).
I have no idea if it will work, but the fact that they are making an effort to do something different than the current model is a good thing, IMO.
As I wrote in that related experiment we tried almost 5 years ago, the current model for social aggregators (and social networks in general) is seriously flawed. As long as the users aren't paying, they are the product, and incentives are misaligned.
I believe that all cross-site tracking of user behavior on the internet should be illegal. However, until competing economic models exist, there isn't much hope that we can move away from selling user data as the mode of profit.
More than anything, this just shows how nonsensical the whole venture capital thing is.
Yes and no. Google and Facebook were ventured backed, and came to profitability selling their user data. Reddit's data is less valuable due to the nature of their accounts and service, but it's not for lack of trying, Brave shows me 5 cross-site trackers blocked on reddit.com (LOL cnn.com shows 55).
There are countless VC backed businesses that have become profitable and couldn't have started with loans from a bank. No doubt the hot-potato model of "get users and then IPO" is bullshit, but venture capital is an economic engine.
That said, I think the notion of an "accredited investor" is total horseshit, and VC money has carried a premium that will fall to crowd-funding models. This is one reason why I am a fan of cryptocurrency. It removes the gate keepers/rent-seekers, breaks down barriers for entry, and puts the creation of new funding models into people's hands.
This experiment will probably fail, but it is an experiment that couldn't have taken place when Reddit was created.
I dunno, the GOP and NRA have been doing it for the last couple decades.