Incentivizing cowboy zapping power? 🤠⚡ (controversial topic) \ stacker news ~meta

Incentivizing cowboy zapping power? 🤠⚡ (controversial topic)

1910 sats \ 29 comments \ @satoshiplanet 2 Jan meta

Hey stackers! Today I would like propose to the SN team a new feature that could be implemented in order to incentivize cowboys, of course I know that it could be controversial, but I would like to know the opinion of the community about it.

It's simple, everything revolves around making more visible the posts that are zapped by cowboys. Several formulas come to my mind to achieve this, here I list several options:

Option 1: Create a new post section including posts that have been zaps by cowboys, the section could be called "top by cowboys" or similar, I think this is the easiest option to implement.
Option 2: Instead of creating a new section, cowboy zaps could have more weight in the top section. For example they could influence 20% more with respect to others that have no or less cowboy zaps.
Option 3: In the previous option all cowboys would have the same weight, however in this one, the visibility power of a post could vary according to the time as a cowboy, i.e., when same amount of sats are zapped by a stacker, a 5-day cowboy and a 50-day cowboy, the latter would have more influence.

Conclusion Current SN system for daily rewards seems excellent to me, this is just an attempt to encourage the whole community to become cowboys, without affecting to a great extent the users who are not yet cowboys.

I think it is great to fight bots and farmers, on the other hand I also think that if cowboys do not make a responsible use of their power SN could become a digital oligopoly, the opposite of what I think it is now.

Personally I don't know where I stand but I think it is positive to open a debate about it.

Thanks for reading, sat, let us know your ideas!

view all related items

1499 sats \ 15 replies \ @siggy47 2 Jan

In the SN FAQ, you can find this:

The ranking of an item is affected by: the amount a stacker zaps a post or comment the trust of the stacker making the zap the time elapsed since the creation of the item Zapping an item with more sats amplifies your trust, giving you more influence on an item's ranking. However, the relationship between sats contributed and a stacker's influence on item ranking is not linear, it's logarithmic. The effect a stacker's zap has on an item's ranking is trust*log10(total zap amount) where 10 sats = 1 vote, 100 sats = 2, 1000 sats = 3, and so on ... all values in between are valid as well. To make this feature sybil resistant, SN now takes 10% of zaps and re-distributes them to the SN community as part of the daily rewards.

Some of what you are suggesting may already exist.

360 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Jan

And you know he's got a point because of his cowboy hat streak.

287 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2 Jan

And yet you resist calling me sweetie pie?

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Jan

It was difficult, but I managed.

210 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 2 Jan

Thanks, while reading I thought about replying something similar.

Interesting idea though

110 sats \ 2 replies \ @satoshiplanet OP 2 Jan

This point is not clear to me, does it refer to cowboys? If so, to what extent does it influence? Thanks for your comments

the trust of the stacker making the zap

151 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2 Jan

Not necessarily. Trust is a measure of a stacker's history of zapping good content. A cowboy is simply someone who has zapped a certain amount in a given day. The quality of the zap is irrelevant, so far as I know.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @satoshiplanet OP 2 Jan

Thanks

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @zuspotirko 2 Jan

Maybe it's just me being a dumdum but I don't understand who is the zapper and who is the zapee in these sentences.

I guess it makes intuitive sense that my trust increases when I receive zaps. But I didn't understand that from this quote.

5 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 2 Jan

No, you read it correctly. Your trust increases when you zap quality content posted by others. Like in life, it is better to give than to receive.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @zuspotirko 2 Jan

I know I have it the correct way round. I'm just saying it isn't clearly worded in the quote.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2 Jan

You had better bring it up with customer service.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko 2 Jan

@k00b @ekzyis here is an alternative wording:

The ranking of your item is affected by: The amount other stackers zap your post or comment The trust of the stacker zapping you The time elapsed since the creation of your item Zapping your item with more sats amplifies your trust, giving you more influence on an item's ranking. However, the relationship between sats contributed and the stackers influence on item ranking is not linear, it's logarithmic. The effect a stacker's zap has on your item's ranking is trust*log10(total zap amount) where 10 sats = 1 vote, 100 sats = 2, 1000 sats = 3, and so on ... all values in between are valid as well. To make this feature sybil resistant, SN now takes 10% of zaps and re-distributes them to the SN community as part of the daily rewards.

I changed the subject to "you" and "the stacker". Alternatively "the zapper" and "the zappee". Or "sender" and "recipient". I like the last one the most because it's clearer. But I guess you probably insist on the "stacker"-lingo.

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Fabs 2 Jan

Pretty much this, you're becoming one of my favorites, sweetie-pie.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @satoshiplanet OP 2 Jan

Thanks for commenting mate

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @quark 2 Jan

We can't see what is that trust score, right? Can't verify if we have to trust a hidden trust score. But I guess it works well.

72 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lost_dogz 2 Jan

As a current cowboy, I really dislike the idea of cowboys getting more privilege somehow. The existing incentives are good enough

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @0fje0 2 Jan

As a current cowboy, I really dislike the idea of cowboys getting more privilege somehow.

Also as a current cowboy, I agree.

It seems to me that most responses here see SN trust and cowboy status as almost the same thing - or at least somehow related. But as far as I know, that is not the case. And the ranking FAQ doesn't even mention cowboy hats.

What I have seen, are stackers saying they don't trust non-cowboys (as much). That could indirectly influence rankings, I guess, but it's not (currently) part of the ranking algorithm, is it?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @satoshiplanet OP 2 Jan

Probably u are right

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 2 Jan

Great thoughts. I like the ideas! Preference to option 1

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 2 Jan

I think ultimately the best route is user curation tools. Each individual user should have a wide variety of options for how they want their own feed to sort. Eventually.

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @xz 2 Jan

zaps by cowboys.. Is there a cowboy specific onomatopoeic?

cowzap? 🤠⚡🐄

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @satoshiplanet OP 2 Jan

Like it, cowzapped! 😝

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joyepzion 3 Jan

Most of these already is in use in the current zapping system if only there was one article that defines it all.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @brave 3 Jan

Filtering cowboy zapping posts only might move attention from other great posts that might not be zapped by cowboy hatters