201 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 26 Dec 2023 \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
tbh I'm struggling to find where we actually disagree. This isn't a priority relative to many other things but it is a priority among novel economic tools for community-keeping.
I think the communities that have high bonds will appeal to very specific set of people and I think those people want less but deeper engagement.
I think low bonds are probably useful to other territory founder that doesn't want to actively watch their territory but want it to exist.
Neither is exactly well suited to SN's current audience but that's kind of the point. Some people are more comfortable behind red ropes and hurdles and we don't have devices for that yet.
I see the value proposition for territory founders to have tools they may wish to use and to use them as they see fit but I don't see the value proposition for SN broadly. The benefit of territories besides the revenue is breadth of content hopefully leading to more activity on the site and more users on the site. The drawback at least currently as we are in the early days (wild west phase) of territories is a more siloed user experience. I think giving founders tools to restrict engagement (I am not talking about bots or zap farming posts) further silos SN. I think it is a delicate balance you have to strike between growing SN and the feature set and maintaining the magic that got SN to this point.
In my opinion, the territories are like "franchises" of SN. There should be some tools and autonomy for territory founders to manage their territories as they see fit but ultimately those should align with the broader SN experience, value proposition, user loyalty ethos.
reply