pull down to refresh
Putting down the 3M on all your territories does not make you immune from profiting off scammers though.
Unless they post enough for territory to recover its initial sat payment it will always be in a loss. Once the sat revenues are above break even then you can make this case. But I think all are underwater besides the bitcoin territory which is owned by SN daddy
If the only road to profitability is enshittification, because that's kind of what you're hinting at here, then maybe the experiment should just fail before people get scammed.
No I’m not hinting at anything. Scams are afoot everywhere. SN does put a real cost to scamming. If they fail they will run out of money but if they are successful they may try to continue the scam and if the territory owner is indifferent then the stacker can lose engagement or another territory can be established that moderates their content a bit better.
Plus many years ago k00b mentioned he wanted to make territories more robust but couldn’t due to all this work on the wallet. With that hopefully coming to a close with spark (which some bitcoiners view as an affinity scam) maybe SN will allow more tools for territories to fight scams and spam.
SN is far from a finished product. So the tools could get better to prevent enshittification. But it’s never going to be perfect. Tragedy of the commons is real! Just human nature
What I'm doing is this:
- On a normal day you get 10 posts at 30 sats + 500 sats in zaps. So your normal income is
(10*30*0.7)+(500*.21) = 210 + 105 = 215 sats. - On this special day a scammer pays you a 50k sats boost, which makes your income
(50,000*.7)+215 = 35,215 sats.
In scenario 2, you can keep the sats, or you can downzap the scammer for 35k sats. You're saying "but I wanna break even", and what I'm asking is: "by profiting from scams?"
Yeah I understand what you mean but in this example it is up to territory owner to make that judgement call. And stackers can shame him for not downzapping or moderating the scam.
I don't disagree with the bottom line, at all. I'm not advocating for any coercion or even shame.
What I do advocate against though is to think that profitability - of which you say there is none - stands in the way of taking pay from a scam. In practice, you are almost right, except that the decision to profit off immorality is not something that correlates with unprofitability per se, I'm quite sure that the opposite is true: the upholding of morals may lead to reduced profitability.
And from that perspective, a well kept territory in the red may be better than a poorly kept territory in the black; after all, the red/black only matters to the territory owner, whereas the quality of the territory matters to a whole lot more people.
Therefore I said that there's a suggestion to enshittify, if the profit of the territory owner has a dependency on scams.
. In practice, you are almost right, except that the decision to profit off immorality is not something that correlates with unprofitability per se
Unless a territory has banning powers downzaping the ill-gotten gains can only do so much especially if the scammer has a bigger bag of sats than you.
Expecting people to be altruistic for the greater good of SN is not a good incentive for survival.
If ~AskSN is currently paying month-to-month, then it's probably in the black.
Yeah it’s been hot has of late. But it started off hot with the old owner and then fizzled till he no longer paid the rent!
I can see the value of not allowing yourself to profit from scammers posting in your territory, though. It creates a moral hazard that doesn't exist if you dump those sats downzapping stuff that you think shouldn't exist on your territory.
It's a long-run/quality vs short-term profitability argument.
I like this take and don’t forget territory owners have a real profit and loss! (Mostly loss right now for most of us)