pull down to refresh

213 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 29 Apr \ parent \ on: Downzapping on Stacker News - let's talk about pros and cons meta

That's a totally different model that's agnostic as to how people use the site.

The presumption underlying the comment was that SN is a direct beneficiary of zaps and downzaps, when it's actually those of us receiving rewards who are the direct beneficiaries and SN is an indirect beneficiary.

write
compose
71 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 29 Apr

Maybe you can say that since a portion of zaps and boosts go to territory owners and territory fees go to SN, there is some incentive to increase zaps and boosts there.

Downzaps go 100% to rewards.

reply
103 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 29 Apr

Definitely an incentive, but SN is definitely not "the only one truly winning the Zap War revenue".

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 29 Apr

What he said

reply
59 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 29 Apr

Tax incidence etc. economically speaking, doesn't matter who ultimately pays the rent. Value comes fr the zappers and posters

reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 29 Apr

You saw the part of the comment claiming that Stacker News is the only beneficiary, right?

Tax incidence and etc. aside, economically speaking, there are clearly other beneficiaries.

reply
47 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 29 Apr

I confess that I don't remember "only"... Got lost in the threads now so can't find it

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 29 Apr

Territory rent and SNs long term economic viability does ultimately depend upon sufficient revenue for territory owners...or charity...

reply