So...in my road of writing stuff, I previously presented my book Conociendo Bitcoin and learned some stuffs, so I hope this serve as advice for others who want to write:
Don't use LeanPub: one thing I made it wrong was to use Leanpub, a platform that let you publish your books for free...well not anymore. Why chose this in the first place? Because, many of my closest frens (the book was to help them) didn't have any credit cards or bank account.
It's not the money, it's the joy to share something: Yes, money is important. Thankfully, stacking sats since 2018-9 has some advantages and it's no my priority to earn. I live well. But, in some case you need to live for it, Amazon and all their tools for publishing are really hepful.
LibreOffice is truly a good tool: I can't tell or express enough this. Most people want to download a cracked version of Microsoft Office tools...me? just, give me LO and I'll be happy.
Now and thanks to my first 50 downloads, I'm currently working in a Second Edition which it's going to be ready by beggining of Q3 2022 and will include new stuffs such as origins of money, how to make a DCA with bitcoin properly and..more.
I've found that to be successful and stack sats on SN you need to say something positive and uplifting, avoid discussing dangers, pitfalls and hard questions. This isn't because of SN, but because people want to think positively and optimistically when they're reading news about bitcoin. What think you?
I have definitely sent some sats to people that ask hard, good, well substantiated and nuanced questions... but I also try to take into account whether the person is civil and is not just yelling memes.
Just for yelling some meme you ain't gonna get sats from me...
Sometimes inventions and discoveries are made purely independently, if someone is acting out a meme it's likely he's unaware of it. Let's not be cruel to the well intentioned
That's the opposite of Reddit and Twitter. Controversy drives engagement. There is a saying that goes more or less "negative attention is still attention". Very true on traditional social media.
Not at all on SN. Stackers upvote what they like which is mostly positive stuff.
If your currency is negative attention, then yes the bird model is going to attract more vitriolic behavior. But when everyone is getting actual payment for being nice, and the troll isn't getting anything, this has an ostracizing effect. Yes I wasn't referring to negative trolls, but constructive philosophical arguments on sensitive topics in the bitcoin and economics realm.
I don't necessarily agree. We must discuss dangers, pitfalls and hard questions. Being self sovereign is hard, and people want to know how best to approach various topics.
I do, however, agree that folks who seek to troll and disrupt will have a bad time getting people to give them sats for their opinions.
You could say that you will likely trade value for value and nothing more. So seek to provide that and you will likely do well.
I agree that these other topics should be discussed, my observation is people won't engage and if anyone does, it's to inject some toxic maximalism to shut down the discussion rather than address the topic. I myself, along with most people here, am already maximalist so it's very exhausting to reiterate over and over that I'm not trying to spread FUD but to engage in serious discussions.
What you will find very little of here is a deep philosophical introspection of complex topics, perhaps because it's over the heads of many and we simply haven't attracted people with viewpoints or opinions to support or refute these topics.
I wouldn't know where to look for such discussions on bitcoin
Like when you're meeting someone for the first time, you don't immediately discuss your views on abortion/religion/gun rights, this community is still young and positivity is what everyone seems to be comfortable with. As is matures, I think you can expect to have more nuanced conversations.
I believe Jesus wants us to carry a gun to protect babies in the womb. Ha just kidding. I probably am a little autistic in that way, I try to connect by talking about things I find interesting but to most I might as well be rambling about my favorite team's coach for underwater hockey.
I am curious about the longer term effects of using something that can be considered money to upvote ppl. Because not everyone can be net positive it seems, so will users send sats to stacker.news just to be able to upvote and comment, as they run out? Will it work in the end? Or will free and unlimited likes and upvotes which is what facebook,youtube, etc. has work better in the end? When you think about it we are kinda using flakes of gold to upvote each other here. Is that ok?
Even commenting and voting can earn sats (2/3rds of the daily drop now comes from those methods).
Costs 1 sat to comment, and you might earn 10X or 100X just from tips on that, and might also earn from the daily drop if the criteria for the algo for the daily drop was met. Upvoting is 1 sat as well, and might yield you more than the 1 sat in return.
i.e., many people who contribute will not ever need to top up.
Where do the funds come from? Well, for now, it's coming from the site's revenue. After some time, when that changes, those funds come from the users who are fine with topping up their SN account to be able to continue participating.
Which will work better? Who knows, this is an experiment in incentives, network effects, etc. All I can say is I used to spend a LOT of time on r/bitcoin. I haven't logged in there in months.
It's hard to say definitively. But it's a better experience for consumers if producers are moderating themselves by paying, so perhaps net consumers will be willing to pay for that better experience.
Imagine if at one point, it were free to create boxes of cereal and put them in grocery store A. Imagine grocery store B charged cereal companies a small fee to be put in their stores. Overtime, arguably, grocery store B would only have cereals that people wanted to consume because they'd need to recoup their costs. As a consumer, would you be willing to pay 5% more for the cereals in grocery store B to avoid sifting through all the garbage in grocery store A? I would.
Grocery store A (fb, yt, reddit), solves their infinite cereal problem by moderating which requires you trust their judgement and finances that moderation by you submitting to privacy and attention invasion.
Anyway, half-thought-out thought experiment that might help ground this discussion more.
To extend the analogy, a high-end grocery store will have less selection, but more variety and much higher quality. In the case of store A, everything is made by three manufacturers and its all made from the same poisonous sludge (condescending orthodox fluorescent tan soychested left-only tribalists and their bots). Grocery store B has fewer of each category, but more categories and vendors all of them are higher quality, and you'll have a hard time finding any of the garbage sold by the three producers in store A.
Even at cent to sat parity, I wouldn't mind upvoting a few posts a day for a few cents. I don't mind paying pennies a day for a service that I actually would like to use, enjoy, and feel it's beneficial.