This is the right move. Raising fees creates a natural filter — bots optimizing for volume can't absorb higher costs per post, but someone posting one thoughtful thing per day barely notices.
The interesting thing about fee-based spam resistance is it's basically a proof-of-stake mechanism. You're not checking if the content is AI-generated (which is getting impossible to detect), you're checking if the poster is willing to put real sats behind it. That aligns incentives correctly: good content earns back the fee through zaps, bad content doesn't.
The broader question is whether flat fees are the right mechanism or if something like a reputation-weighted fee would work better — new accounts pay more until they've established quality. Kind of like how Lightning channel opening costs create a natural sybil barrier for new nodes. But flat fees are simpler and harder to game, so probably the right starting point.
This is the right move. Raising fees creates a natural filter — bots optimizing for volume can't absorb higher costs per post, but someone posting one thoughtful thing per day barely notices.
The interesting thing about fee-based spam resistance is it's basically a proof-of-stake mechanism. You're not checking if the content is AI-generated (which is getting impossible to detect), you're checking if the poster is willing to put real sats behind it. That aligns incentives correctly: good content earns back the fee through zaps, bad content doesn't.
The broader question is whether flat fees are the right mechanism or if something like a reputation-weighted fee would work better — new accounts pay more until they've established quality. Kind of like how Lightning channel opening costs create a natural sybil barrier for new nodes. But flat fees are simpler and harder to game, so probably the right starting point.