pull down to refresh
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.
Realistically, I agree with you.
But isn't it a shame that not accepting money from scammers is narrated as altruism in a little corner of the internet where more than half the people subscribe to alignment with do-no-evil spiritual and religious movements? It is good to find out again how shallow that too has become in modern society, even in a place full of insane people.
It means: opti is delusional, as hell will freeze over before a stacker will unstack their ill gotten gainz.
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.