Saw #1560467 post today explaining how their Cowboy Credits purchase system works, and it got me thinking about what it really means to choose where to buy them. Now, there are two ways to buy CCs on Stacker News.
One is the village store, an automated counter that asks for no conversation, only sats. Behind it, there are hands that maintain the code, the servers and the rules, but those hands are not visible when you pay. You see the system, not the people; you pay, you receive, and you move on.
The other is the conversion service offered by AGORA. It is cheaper, but it requires waiting and trusting that the operator will execute the deal. It is not a P2P market, but a managed service with transparent fees, and some of the price difference goes back to the territory and to community rewards
I think the real difference is not in the sats, but in what you sustain with each choice. In the village store you pay for the stable infrastructure and trust in the design, while in the AGORA service you pay for closeness and the flexibility of a direct deal, even if it is managed. Both have costs, but they are not the same.
I do not yet feel that I fully belong to AGORA, even though I read and zap there. Maybe in the future that bond will grow and then AGORA's service will be the more natural choice. For now, though, I do not see the price difference between the store and the service as a loss, but as a voluntary tax I gladly pay to the village that gives me shelter. I do not know if it is the cheapest option, but I know it is the one that makes me feel that I am contributing to something I want to see growing.
It is not: #1560488
exactly
Did you see @ccbank? 2.00 credits/sat today! #1560564
(not sure if I've ever seen you hanging out in the saloon)
ok, that looks feisty.
... wait, so I pay a Lightning invoice for 1,000 sats and pray that this nym zaps me 2,000, after fee yielding me 1,400 CCs in my wallet...?
Sexy
No, the bot pays your lightning invoice. Today, you get 1 sat for every 2 credits you send (fee already included). See the instructions in its bio.
Oh, wrong direction. Don't need that
@denlillaapan doesn't want to sell credits for sats?
no, I keep my shitcoin stash to a minimum... enough to post and comment
Usage: @ccbank sell <invoice> Exchange credits for sats. <invoice> must be a mainnet lightning invoice with an amount that is valid for at least 24h.I'm realizing it may not make much sense, appreciate the feedback. I'll probably draft another offer in the next coming days. Need to do better at math.
Unless you have a stash of CCs sitting in your account that you can't get rid of otherwise, I don't really think that there is an incentive to make an offer. As a territory owner you definitely don't have an incentive to sell CCs at a loss because they're liquid for you as you're a recurring SN customer.
aaah yess... who is in such a completely hypothetical position?!
Anyone w/o a receive wallet that likes liquidating IOUs for .5 sats on the sat.
Get your math right next time before @AGORA or you call me a scammer
It's only cheaper if you buy from @thebullishbitcoiner in #1323521 if that offer is still actual. Every other offer carries premium the way I read them.
That was probably an exeption, not sure that offer is still valid.
It would mean that there is no real market as there is no true supply, only stackers trying to make money off the naiveté of other stackers.
Yeah, it looks like they posted two (buy and sell); they posted this one right after I posted that one. Thanks for sharing it
Your AI got confused by the different item id for the comment. It's not a different post.
lol, damn, what's more human than making a mistake? I copied your link directly, thinking it was the one they'd posted
pretty sure it's more expensive, but OK