Hey @k00b, do you think it could be an option to set the cost of "replies" in our territories? I'm just thinking of manageable ways I'll be able to recoup the 100k sats monthly payment. On that note....have you considered what you'll do when bitcoin 2x, 3x etc in price? Will the subscription fee for owning a territory be adjusted to compensate? What does everyone else think? What are some ways you guys can propose to earn sats back from a territory? Thanks
1790 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 9 Dec 2023
The territories will not be profitable on territory revenue alone. At least not any time soon.
What I am trying to quantify is the value add of having the territory and the territories in general incentivizing greater activity across SN to my own daily earnings from zaps and rewards.
I will wait until the end of the month but then I am going to do a post that will show the revenue I earned from the territory plus the zaps/rewards I earned compared to the pre-territory era. Did the increased activity in the territory, and more broadly on SN earn me enough additional zaps/rewards to make up for the loss on the territory fee?
Not that it really matters to me. It would be nice to break even but if I don't that's ok too. I am just trying to formulate a picture of the impact of territories. Hopefully we will get some data out of SN as well to see if they have increased users and activity.
I expect most territories to fail or to be passion projects financed at a loss by the founders. We are in the territory boom phase right now but I expect we will see great attrition over the next couple months as territories drop off or merge (maybe it's not viable to have individual art, music, and movie territories and they meld into one. Maybe AI and tech become one. Health and Fitness become one. Etc).
Ultimately, I think the territories will be a huge benefit to SN long term. I wouldn't have pestered @k00b for months about a sports sub if I didn't believe breadth of conversation would be a net benefit to the site. That being said we are going to have a messy few months to coalesce probably around 10-12 (guess) viable territories. In the meantime, let's get some more bitcoiners on the platform. Right now I haven't even begun to try to attract non bitcoiners when most bitcoiners aren't even on here. Let's get the low hanging fruit and then broaden our horizons.
That's my 2 sats.
reply
299 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 9 Dec 2023
Well-articulated, thanks for sharing.
The secondary effects are really interesting to me -- I think this is going to be a fertile experiment, as territories exert subtle (and maybe not so subtle) influence on the general tenor of SN. It's already pretty noticeable -- for instance, today's weekend book recs thread, in the ~BooksAndArticles territory, is more diverse than it usually is, and people who've posted there have been zapped harder. An injection of energy and interest.
Some of that will pass, of course. Still, cool to see now.
My prediction is that in three months SN will look nothing like it has looked since inception. Even ~bitcoin will be transformed. Some people will hate that, of course, but the world moves forward. Having SN as a vital and thriving testament to what cool things can exist only bc of btc / lightning, and not just another btc forum where btc is discussed endlessly by its acolytes, will do more to further the cause of btc than anything else I can think of in the product space.
Look forward to your end-of-month wrapup!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 9 Dec 2023
Agreed.
reply
71 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zepasta 9 Dec 2023
deleted by author
reply
466 sats \ 8 replies \ @Zepasta 9 Dec 2023
deleted by author
reply
485 sats \ 3 replies \ @kytt 9 Dec 2023
If Bitcoin hit $1M, the cost to start a territory would be >$1,000 USD. The 100k sats cost is fine for now and possibly for a 2x/3x, but would obviously have to change at some point. More users may mean better distribution among people and more zaps, but would also mean there will be many with very few sats to spend while wealth is still concentrated.
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Dec 2023
Or, the owners of territories will become "landed" gentry. Buying outright for 3 million sats might be quite the long term investment.
reply
610 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 9 Dec 2023
Exactly. Most of us are free market guys, right? Let that invisible hand decide.
reply
223 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Dec 2023
That said, there probably are interesting pricing models that can be more responsive to demand.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @notgeld 9 Dec 2023
Fine for the US, probably. Likely I can't sustain it for a long time.
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @Tony 9 Dec 2023
I thought you got lifetime
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld 9 Dec 2023
Nope. I decided just to try.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Dec 2023
That's why I didn't buy one. Not everything on the market is a good buy for everyone.
reply
21 sats \ 5 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 9 Dec 2023
@k00b I had an idea... Would we be able to assign "moderators" to territories. This was we could split the fees say 5 ways for a team of 5 mods. Making it much more palatable for some. Their job would obviously be to "moderate" that space. That could pose a solution. With the rewards from territories being spit within moderators (ideally automated by SN, but if trust based to start then so be it)
reply
42 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 9 Dec 2023
Eventually yes we hope to allow multiple founders. Perhaps if you opt-in to fundraising to pay for fees, everyone that donates becomes a partial founder.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jeff 10 Dec 2023
It sounds like there might be slight rug-pull risk with founding a territory. Was that intended?
If I put up 100K sats monthly for say 20 months, then the rules change, and you let somebody else buy a fraction of the 21 st months' revenue...that seems like a violation of property rights.
On the other hand, if a territory founder has the option but not the obligation to accept additional financial contributions...then that seems like a better pattern.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 10 Dec 2023
I said opt-in
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff 10 Dec 2023
Apologies, I read it the other way. I took it as a user opting-in to contributing to funding. I should have known better.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 9 Dec 2023
Seems reasonable to me. Front cash get a stake, like shares in a company. Eventually (hopefully) there won't really be any discernable founders and everyone who contributes and puts skin in the game gets dividends.
reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 9 Dec 2023
Yes it could be. I think the author should also be cut into reply costs though.
No not really. If the fiat price of bitcoin increases, every sat you earn will also go up in fiat price.
In the future we plan to allow territory founders to sell sub-territories within their territory which can be sold at a price of their choosing, eg 10k/mo. At that point 100k/mo is just the price for a top-level territory.
reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 9 Dec 2023
I created a poll about doing a fundraiser within the territory. So far the response has been in favour of that being an OK move to make. There's been some opposition with valid concerns. I think it'll be up to each individual territory owner to manage how they feel is appropriate. But I hadn't intended on becoming a "ruler of a kingdom" only it's initial patron. It's still early. We shall see how it all shakes out.
reply
12 sats \ 2 replies \ @antic 9 Dec 2023
I'm also curious what happens to a territory if someone decides to stop paying the monthly fee. Does that territory get claimed by SN? Does it go up for grabs for someone else to purchase? At 10sats/post and 50% rev share, territories need to have 20K posts per month to make up a 100K/month cost, so I suspect a lot of these early territories are going to freeze up once the initial sponsor runs low on sats. Would be really interesting if we had public charts on the performance of territories (I'm sure SN internally can query and get charts of that) but that might help folks see if a territory is underfunded by activity and in need of user donations to keep it rolling (or if the territory sponsor has said that they are willing to consume the loss)
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @POTUS 9 Dec 2023
They have said that territories will be archived and someone else can come along and revive it if they’d like. I do think most of the early territories will be one and done
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @needcreations_ OP 9 Dec 2023
yeah, the ROI doesn't seem very good for territory owners. But it's still early
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @fred 10 Dec 2023
I love the 1 sat per reply, don't make them take that away
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @needcreations_ OP 10 Dec 2023
as it stands, there is little incentive for me to post in my own territory when it comes to earning my subscription fee back. I can post 100 times and make everything engaging, but if everyone can just reply for 1 sat I've not earned much for all my contributions....
But I do hear you. 1 sat reply is nice for engagement and what not. I'm just thinking in terms of being able to sustain a territory month after month with that 100k price tag.......
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @needcreations_ OP 10 Dec 2023
granted, users can still zap my posts, which is great. IDK what's best really... I'll keep thinking about this. I'm happy we are engaging in the discussion. I'm sure we'll come to consensus and the right moves will be made by the admins to appease everyone :) @k00b
reply