It seems some people may not fully understand applied honest concepts, because too often it seems too many people think it's necessary to appease other people's lack of understanding about the related payoffs from those applied concepts.
That's a form of evil.
Let me give you an example of what I mean: Too many people think it's necessary to shirk, you know- kind of hinge on calling My Daily Cash Machine a revenue sharing program- but it's not.
But because too many people don't really understand the full implications of "revenue sharing" then what happens from there is the equivalent trickle-down effect of prevailing more the ignorant ideas related to the concepts of revenue sharing than prevailing the powerful ideas that the concept of revenue sharing actually represents. So many people have joined and have been burned by supposed revenue sharing businesses that were actually cheat models in disguise of revenue sharing that the consequence of so many people now having a bad taste in their mouths about revenue sharing is that we see more examples of people trying to appease other people's ignorance of the related applied concepts of revenue sharing in My Daily Cash Machine than we see of people actually trying to bridge the divide towards the proper perspective and understanding of revenue sharing.
But it's not really anyone's fault that this behavior exists- and yet its everyone's fault at the same time. It's no one's fault because the refusal to grasp the concepts of revenue sharing stems from everyone having bought into prevailing societal ideas related to income generation. The prevailing ideas related to income is that we should work for someone and they pay us what they want to pay us for the work we do.
The reason why it's everyone's fault is that within the realm of capitalism every individual is equally responsible for the roles he/she plays to keep the current of capitalism strong. Individual sleeping on how revenue sharing is the perfect model within the realm of capitalism only prevails the ignorant ideas related to revenue sharing and prevents more people from experiencing the difference which revenue sharing can make in their financial lives.
To be sure: revenue sharing simply refers to honest pay mechanisms. This is why so-called "rev share" programs which pay less than 100% of revenue equally could never be legit business models. Revenue sharing means that you honestly get paid versus your honest input to grow the business. And revenue sharing can be applied to any business model, simply because revenue sharing lends itself to the idea that it doesn't matter who created the business platform, the platform was created for the sole purpose of all access and with pay based on participation from believing in the underlying business model.
Revenue sharing means you support the idea and your pay which you design yourself from your purchase of adpacks is a reflection of your belief in the business model and the internal realization is that it's up to your efforts to help the business grow enough to secure your related payoffs from it growing.
That's what revenue sharing is supposed to represent, but too many people just don't understand that concept- they simply can't get passed those well-engrained ideas that someone is to pay them based on some preset criteria which lack any form of quantification: Think about it, a $30 an hour job under a $30,000,000 venture may be only a relative return value- I mean, how do we honestly know that pay shouldn't be more because the overhead from the business is so low?
My point is simply that in all forms of honest revenue sharing business models you will be able to quantify your return value versus some objective, measurable standard. You will know for sure within an honest model of revenue sharing that your pay matches your level of input. There is no more honest a form of making money than from a properly engaged revenue sharing concept.
Simply because revenue sharing, the properly applied concepts of revenue sharing, engages network implications by default!
Don't we get it? Revenue sharing itself is supposed to mean simply this: "WE MAKE MORE INDIVIDUALLY BY WORKING COLLECTIVELY!"
And in My Daily Cash Machine, that's exactly what we all are doing whether any one of us realize it or not. From our individual places of engagement of My Daily Cash Machine, we all add value to the platform for marketers to affront their wares before us- think about it: Every individual in the world has a degree of value within himself/herself. Therefore, when individuals combine and collect around a common cause, the collective number of those individual increases the individual value by exponents to add even greater value to the collective. That collective engagement is from where the revenue is created and later redispersed- essentially that is the My Daily Cash Machine's operational context.
Therefore, the applied concepts of My Daily Cash Machine is revenue sharing, or performance-based pay, from network participation.
Revenue sharing is the most powerful statement of a business model which anyone can make within the realm of capitalism, simply because capitalism itself means network implications by default, so therefore capitalism requires greater impact from the network- so much so, that capitalism is greater advanced upon by any network engaging in revenue sharing participation.
Don't let anyone ever make you think it's necessary to pull punches on referring to My Daily Cash Machine as a revenue sharing business from the sale of real services. What too many people want those of us who fully understand our business to do is appease their lack of understanding of applied business-related concepts so that we kind of shirk of referring to My Daily Cash Machine as a revenue sharing program.
Granted, part of the reason why people get uncomfortable with the idea of My Daily Cash Machine as a revenue sharing business model is because of the proliferation of "rev shares" online. But, in the case of that: Nothing online which doesn't share 100% of revenue is an honest revenue share, because where there is lack of 100% of sharing occurring within that business model then there is a lack of 100% of quantification to prove the model as honest. So no attempt to describe My Daily Cash Machine which shares 100% of revenue can be honestly described against those models that don't share 100% of revenue. That one distinction separates My Daily Cash Machine from any of the others, and it's something which those others are very much aware of.
But too many people who engage these programs don't get that distinction, don't understand its significance within the applied context of the underlying business, so the consequence of their lack of grasping that significant difference in distinction is their thinking that "all rev shares are the same."
The key to understanding the related points here includes understanding the related concepts of capitalism, and income generation within capitalism. The problem is too many people don't honestly understand capitalism as the honest model for any populous, so the resort of that failure to understand capitalism are the continued cheat codes they devise from their lack of understanding from honest beginning points.
Now, at least, after reading this post, you have an opportunity to not be one of those people who attempts to appease other's lack of understanding of the beauty of revenue sharing as it relates to My Daily Cash Machine.
Think about it.