pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 16 replies \ @k00b 14h \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
People have no direct incentive to zap
write
preview
102 sats \ 13 replies \ @optimism 13h
Wait there is an incentive to zap?
reply
200 sats \ 6 replies \ @Scoresby 13h
A user must pay to post and they must pay to comment, but they don't necessarily have to pay to see more of what they like on the site. Of the three actions one might do on SN, zapping is the least directly tied to the outcome one might want (more of this kind of content).
Rewards being tied to zapping seems like a way one might encourage more zapping and if there is more zapping, the hope is that the connection between zapping content you like and seeing more of the content you like might become more clear.
reply
202 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 13h
"see more of what they like on the site" has a free rider problem. free riders need the extra incentive.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 12h
Rewards being tied to zapping seems like a way one might encourage more zapping
None of the days that I got high rewards the past month did it exceed the amount I zapped. What's the incentive exactly?
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 12h
Even if it's not making you whole, it reduces the disincentive some.
I wouldn't argue the way it works currently is perfect. In fact, it's a hacky, lazy stimulus, but I think it can be made better.
reply
200 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 11h
I wouldn't call it hacky and lazy.
I'm not sure it's possible to have both sybil resistance and make people whole on zaps, on average.
Thus, the real net incentives to zap must come from either:
  1. A desire to shape the content on SN
  2. Altruistic desire to support content that you like
  3. Build your trust on SN to enhance your ability to do the above two
Since (1) and (2) cannot easily be controlled by SN, the best lever SN has to play with net incentives to zap is (3). Thus, I don't think the trust system should be removed, though its influence on post rankings could be tinkered with.
The balancing act with trust, I think, is to have a good new user UX, to avoid platform insularity and dominance by a handful of trusted users, while simultaneously providing new users enough incentives to zap content and develop a positive reputation on SN.
We talked about this, but one thing that might help is using a rolling window of zaps to calculate trust instead of the entire history, since it may ossify trust levels too much on a few users.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 11h
Fair.
For our No Trust experiment, I'm leaning toward removing trust from ranking but continuing to use trust in rewards. I'll also tweak trust to have this sliding time window.
The hypothesis being that sybil resistance of zaps should keep ranking healthy and using trust in rewards should prevent this sybil recoup by not having the sybil fee/sacrifice be a direct input to rewards.
reply
202 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h
For our No Trust experiment, I'm leaning toward removing trust from ranking but continuing to use trust in rewards. I'll also tweak trust to have this sliding time window.
I personally think that this is a great compromise for an experiment.
Apologies for not being able to give proper feedback, I (still, sorry) didn't read into the code, so my feedback isn't worth much.
reply
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 13h
Half of rewards go to zappers
reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @supratic 12h
where do the other half go?
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 12h
Posters, commenters and referral program. I think!
reply
221 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 12h
Yep, posters and commenters. 10% of anyone's rewards go to their referrer.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @supratic 12h
That's more complex than I though
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 12h
Mechanism design is hard but when done well it can coordinate people to do great things in an autonomous, scalable way.
IMO this is the primary thing that bitcoin does: it mechanistically, through incentives, causes people to coordinate to create great money.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @supratic 12h
are you saying that good quality contents are not a good enough incentive to zap?
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 12h
I said there's no direct incentive to zap quality content. There's an indirect, warm and fuzzy feeling for zapping quality content otherwise, and an increase in the possibility that OP posts more, but no direct incentive.
Not having a direct incentive isn't that bad in isolation but there's direct incentive for self/sybil zapping (I want people to see my content more so I zap it), so the goal is to create a direct incentive for zapping other people's content that rivals the incentive to sybil.
reply