33 sats \ 16 replies \ @Wumbo 9 Dec 2023 \ on: Do you think it would be unreasonable to fundraise for territory fees? Ask_SN
You payed the 10 Sats to post. It is your thread and your choice to post what you want.
Sorry, I guess the question I was asking was would it be unreasonable of me as a territory founder to request sats (by way of fundraiser post) from that community to cover the territory rental fee of 100k per month. Effectively trying to get the community to pay for it's own territory rather than my own personal funds.
reply
At this point I don't think it's unreasonable. SN is transitioning to a for profit model, as it should. It's not there yet. There's a donate button on the rewards pool. Just keep in mind that you are earning a portion of the fees generated by your territory, and you are paying for that privilege. Is it worth the price now? Almost certainly not. Will it be a bargain in 5 years? Who knows? That's the risk you take.
reply
Agree, things get muddy when you take into account the founders fee you get daily (although not today it seems) however, 100k sats has to come from somewhere. We shall see if it continues to come from my stack or the communities.
reply
Yeah. No rewards today. We are both taking a chance. If the community wants the territory it will probably be okay. If not, I'll let it go after a few months.
reply
Absolutely, I'd just feel it was a shame to lose a territory that people have engaged with and asked for because of affordability.
But everything here is ruled by sats, if the community want to keep the territory alive. They'll vote with their sats. A very use it or lose it stance.
reply
Well, you and grayruby are in a different position, since you started building before all this. You both already have demand and an established community, so for you it's definitely warranted. For the rest of us it's unknown. We're starting from scratch. I would feel uncomfortable asking for donations if the community hasn't shown they want the territory in the first place.
reply
You're right that does put myself and GR in unique positions.
And I suppose with that position and pre-established community there does come a (perhaps unwarranted) expectation that those territories would pay for themselves after an initial start up. But what I'm seeing is although some new faces popping up and making posts, I'm seeing very little zaps on those posts. So either people just aren't zapping, which goes towards what I mentioned on another post with @Car or alternatively they're just not interested in the content being provided. If it's the 2nd one, fair enough content creators need to adjust but if it's the first, it'll take a while and quite a big sinking of funds to keep floating until those new users start to be more zap happy.
reply
Yeah, it's a risk, like any business venture. If the model doesn't work, change it or shut it down.
In my opinion, it is not unreasonable.
I am dubious that you will get enough sats.
reply
Makes sense, but then you should also distribute the earned sats back into the community.
reply
Completely agree. If a fund raiser gets done. Once the fees are covered (if the fees get covered) the remaining sats (can't speak for all territory owners) will be sent straight to rewards pool. I think that's the right thing to do. I'm NFP but I'm also NFL ;)
reply
Could be an interesting feature in SN @k00b where a territory gets fundraised and then the earnings from that territory get split automatically.
reply
As am I, but there's only one way to find out really.
reply