pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 13h \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
              ___   ..   ___
           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)

write
preview
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