pull down to refresh
The problem with shoulds when we aren't using trust is that the proof-of-sacrifice differs among these things.
If we ignore territory revenue (and conflicts of territory founders) by limiting proof-of-sacrifice to reward pool contributions:
- boost sacrifices ~3x more than zaps
- downzaps sacrifice ~3x more than boost
We optimized the current rules for clarity. If we want the system to be free of shoulds though, the above is how I'd arrange things.
If we make zapping more powerful than boost, then I will sybil-zap because I get more power for less sacrifice.
right now, I would say a downzap demonstrates more signal than a zap. Since SN is a pseudonymous site, it's hard to know if anyone is self zapping (collecting 70% of the value of their zap). In order to get the benefit of a 100 sat zap, a self-zapper only has to spend 30 sats (and take the trouble of setting up an alt account).
However, a 100 sat downzap costs 100 sats because the downzapper cannot recoup sats by self downzapping. So that's why I'd say downzapping is a stronger signal than zapping.
Boosting is a self-zap where we can see that the self-zapper didn't receive any portion[1] of the sats back. In order to get the benefit of a 100 sat boost, they actually have to spend 100 sats.
A boost may be a sign of self-importance or ego, but it may also be a way of saying "I think this post is so worth your time that I'm willing to spend to get you to see it." A downzap may be a sign of spite or malice or it may be a selfless act of community policing, like picking up litter so other people don't have to see it.
Rewards make this messy because if some of the boost goes to rewards that the boost-payer receives, they do receive back some of the sats. But it's not as sure a thing, I don't think. ↩
Boost is self-importance, so I don't think so. But perhaps zaps and downzaps should be equal