pull down to refresh
Main takeaway is just that you don't need very strong assumptions to get the basic result that raising posting costs reduces number of posts but raises average post quality. The channel works by filtering out lower quality posts.
The thing that could break the result is if low quality posters also have strong motivation to post. If every poster was like SS, then raising posting costs might not improve post quality coz you're left with highly motivated, low quality posters.
Very intuitive, but proving the mathematical model gives the paper a bit more meat on the bones.
Would it not be of importance that the real world value of the cost is so tiny that it won't matter? (And that we can safely intuit that zaps post-posting Will cover it)
Do we care if its 63 or 103 sats to post?
For instance, I don't believe my behavior was changed at all during Undisciplined's econ cost experiment. (Doesn't have to mean anything, ofc, just that I'm way up the D curve).
I share your instinct. That's why I wrote this in the paper:
Taken together, the results are both surprising and unsurprising. They are unsurprising in the sense that they conform with economic theory: demand curves slope downwards (when posting costs go up, number of posts goes down), and signaling theory works (when posting costs go up, higher quality posts are made). They are surprising in the sense that even such small micro-incentives (the average posting cost is just 51 sats, or about 5 cents) are enough to influence user behavior in such a way that post quality is improved. The results suggest that pay-to-post may be an effective mechanism for mediating content quality, even at very small monetary amounts. Moreover, the assumptions required for this result to hold more broadly are fairly weak: we require only that expected rewards are increasing in post quality (Assumption 3, that post quality and intrinsic motivation to post are positively affiliated (Assumption 2), and that extreme levels of intrinsic motivation are sufficiently rare (Assumption 1). All three assumptions are likely to be satisfied in other social media environments, and thus it may be possible to extrapolate our results to other settings (though perhaps with different baseline cost and rewards levels.)
How about people who prefer not to zap posts from people who wank on about Bitcoin but do not attach Bitcoin sending wallets?
They are asking content consumers to zap them real money but they don't bother to set up sending wallets to be able to send real money themselves.
Maybe the quality of posts would improve if people posting attached both sending and receiving LN wallets and were not so obviously arsemilking hypocrites?
When I zap, I send sats, but when I receive, I'm happy to receive either sats or CCs from people.
Yes I know that from looking at your profile but @denlillaapan cannot send sats to anyone as he only attached a receiving wallet.
It is unfortunate that wallets status is now concealed by default although people who have not attached or only attached receiving wallets but who claim to be Bitcoiners, like @denlillaapan might be rather happy to now have their wallet status concealed by default.
Really appreciate this and glad you write it up for us.
I confess I'm too tired to engage with it — and about a decade out of econ modeling/grad school stuff to grasp much. Sending some zaps and appreciation instead