pull down to refresh

Making weight of zaps = weight of downzaps = weight of boost is another thing we're considering. But it makes defense 3x more expensive for the same provable sacrifice. It's tricky.

I'm implementing things we were planning to implement anyway, because they get at the issue obliquely. If that's not enough, we'll go a more direct route.

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 13h
              ___   ..   ___
           o-~   ~=[UU]=~   ~-o
           |        ||        |
           |        ||        |
          /^\       ||       /^\
 more up (_+_)      ||      (_-_) down hurt more
                    ||
                    ||
                   /VV\
                 ~'~~~~`~ gc

(i too cryptically tried to point out that more good stackers = more upzaps = downzaps will hurt)

reply
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 13h

Ah yes, growth solves all problems that aren't caused by growth.

reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 12h

Haha no it doesn't, at least not really.

But when the cost-to-impact of a single individual actor rises because the total set is larger, it should be easier to tune incentives than when that impact can be rather cheap. I.e. I think that the phenomenon we're seeing now is caused by tuning to reduce sybil risk causing a new weakness to activism.

But the max potential impact of activism only works if there are outsized weaknesses.

reply
202 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 12h
caused by tuning to reduce sybil risk causing a new weakness to activism.

🤌

reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 12h

sorry - 3am 😂

reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 12h

Those pinched fingers were a complement. Framing perhaps only available to a fleshy OEM LLM at 3am.

reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 12h

Thanks. This meatbag made a circular argument tho: b->caused_by(a->causing(b))

reply