pull down to refresh
I thought it was all just sats revenue...?
Yea....?
How do you mean that they're not?
I think that the rewards skew it a bit, because of the distribution mechanism (and the daily 50k sats subsidy.) On top, as I said, I'm not sure if territory revenue should be counted under stacking revenue, as this is - at least how I see it - a distinct money flow.
So I turn up in "top stackers" now not because of the content I contribute, but because of the sats I receive to make up for what I spend on maintaining territory. To me, this makes it feel as if the top stackers list isn't apples-to-apples, after all, you can't run sports or bitcoin or asksn, because those are monopolized.
Also since the top stackers' list includes rewards, if I were posting a lot of half-great content on Monday when there was a big boost, but you were posting a lot of really-great content on Tuesday when there wasn't, then I will, despite stacking less than you on my actual content, have a very good chance to be ranked above you.
Therefore something feels off, but I guess I should just not be lazy and read the code.
not because of the content I contribute, but because of the sats I receive to make up for what I spend on maintaining territory
Hm... So you mean territory fee propels you higher, or "passive" income from unrelated zaps in your territory increases your rank?
Ever since reviving ~ai I've bumped up 3-4 places in the top stacker list, but this seems to be mostly due to territory rewards? In fact, I feel that the main contributor my "top stacker" status comes from being active and getting rewards for activity rather than for great content; after all, I often rank higher than @denlillaapan, who provides more and higher quality content than I do, and gets more upzaps - the discrepancy between top-stackers-by-value vs top-stackers-by-stacking seems large at times.
Does it make sense to have a ranking that ignores rewards and territory income / expense? Just checking what y'all think.