31 sats \ 3 replies \ @gmd 8 Mar 2022 \ parent \ on: Ask SN: how should we disperse earned sats? bitcoin
This is certainly a fun thought experiment.
To be honest I share @earnbitcoin's concerns about the unknown implications of incentivizing and paying for users to be here. Traditional marketing channels might be more expensive in terms of user acquisition but you might get users who inherently want to be there, rather than participate for the bitcoin yield.
Millions of people post on twitter and reddit for likes and worthless karma. SN is leaps and bounds ahead by virtue of sat-votes alone. I feel like in terms of 80-20 this is enough of a magical experience that I worry incentivizing further may have negative repercussions.
It seems we've always been able to pay users for content it's just never been able to happen so elegantly programmatically before lightning. But I think it's failed because people post and share on platforms by intrinsic motivation. Tiktok is the hardest platform to monetize but influencers go there because the user experience and audience reach is so amazing.
Isn't there research that suggests when you pay kids for chores/grades etc it kills their intrinsic motivation? There's a lot of sats to distribute today with low user numbers but I anticipate when job board income 10x's, the user count will have 1000x'd and there will be less to go around. What happens when users who enjoyed getting X sats/m start getting X/2-X/3 sats/m, etc? On a personal level I feel like I've begun developing irrational, negative feelings towards my fold card because the rewards, while still objectively great, aren't nearly as generous as they were a year ago.
I probably have less bitcoin than everyone else on this forum but I just think it's such a magical experience throwing sats around- I feel like that's more than enough of a killer draw. You send some, you stack some, and it all works out in the end. I worry what might happen when less scrupulous users start treating SN as an opportunity to stack sats rather than a fun community to give back to. I know censorship is a big priority here but what happens when speech starts to blend into spam?
I would argue the money and dev time should go towards paying StackerNews to fund and accelerate more magical feature development (subs etc) and that would bring in more quality users in the long-term.
It's definitely a challenge to pay users "correctly" without a KYC process in place to stop bots from creating many accounts.
So far I think the Web of Trust is the most elegant way to solve this problem, but it's still TBD how well this particular model of ranking users by reputation holds up when sats are at stake. I suspect there will be continual tweaking to the ranking algorithm as we learn more about how it works in practice.
However, this is the reality of operating on the frontier and building new tech.
There are enormous opportunities for builders to try new and innovative ideas (and create/capture a ton of value in the process), but not enough precedent to be sure how well they'll work, or which specific combination of ideas will succeed.
Since Lightning is a largely unproven payment stack, it's possible that many of its best use cases haven't even been discovered yet. This is exactly the time to test new, innovative ideas and quickly iterate until something sticks.
We've always got more traditional Web 2 models to fall back on if the new ones don't work, but I think we need to have the courage to test and experiment while the business is nimble, and the big opportunities remain to be discovered.
reply
I'm with @kr here. This feature is not permanent so we shouldn't be overly concerned with hypotheticals. We can cook up a ton of hypotheticals as to why it's a bad idea to make upvotes cost and reward users with sats too.
It's something SN can do that's new and different from existing platforms which is enough to make it worth exploring.
reply
On a personal level I feel like I've begun developing irrational, negative feelings towards my fold card because the rewards, while still objectively great, aren't nearly as generous as they were a year ago.
Similar experience with someone whose Youtube channel I was following. When they were monetized, they couldn't praise Google enough. Since they've gotten their third strike and are now on Rumble, they bad-mouth (albeit deservedly) Youtube / Google at every opportunity.
Moral of that story: Don't mess with someone's source of income.
reply