pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 12h \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
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
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:
- A desire to shape the content on SN
- Altruistic desire to support content that you like
- 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
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
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