pull down to refresh

it’s hard to believe that rational actors would voluntarily spend hard-earned sats just to "upvote" a post without a direct ROI.

Many times Stacker News has saved me time in researching a problem or brought something to my attention that has saved me money. ~Stacker_Stocks is a great an example of this. News about a stock that I have $1,000 USD is worth at the very least 100 sats to me (if not more).

"That’s a fair point regarding information arbitrage. If a post saves you $1,000, then 100 sats is indeed a negligible cost.
However, my skepticism lies in the signal-to-noise ratio. In a system where anyone can post, how much 'noise' are we funding to find that one 'stock tip'? If I have to spend sats to boost my own counter-argument just to be heard, isn't that just a tax on speech rather than a reward for value?
It seems the ROI only exists for the reader who finds a 'gem,' but for the creator, the incentive still feels speculative. You paid 100 sats for a tip, but did the person who provided that value actually get compensated enough to justify their research time?"

reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Wumbo 5 Jan
However, my skepticism lies in the signal-to-noise ratio.

This reminds me of another reason. In your Settings there is a "filter by sats" parameter which lets you set a value a post has to reach for you to see the post.

This allows one to filter out a lot of "Spam" and only get shown something truly valuable (a post people have spent their hard earn sats on).

This feature I think will become one of the killer features of Stacker News as we have more traffic on the site in the future. You can not really do this will Likes or Thumbs Ups as they are free and users will just give them out to any silly thing.

reply

that 'filter by sats' is a clever mechanic, i'll give u that. definitely better than a useless like button.
but doesn't this just create a rich-get-richer loop? if everyone sets their filter to 500 or 1000 sats, then a great post from a new user with 0 balance will never even be seen. u're basically making an echo chamber for people who already have sats to spend.
in a way, u r replacing 'signal-to-noise' with 'wealth-as-signal'. how does a platform stay innovative if the visibility is locked behind a paywall? feels like we're just trading one problem for another. im still not convinced this doesnt hurt the small creators

reply