pull down to refresh
143 sats \ 8 replies \ @faithandcredit 11 Jul 2022 \ on: Daily discussion thread
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?
Interesting juxtaposition.
How many upvotes per day happen on Reddit?
As the value of a sat goes up, my hunch says that vote gets harder to earn.
reply
The number of sats earned could go down but your purchasing power could be going up which kind of a wierd thing to think about.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
so will users send sats to stacker.news just to be able to upvote and comment, as they run out?
This is what I do on a weekly basis. I'm a net consumer, and it's just fun to dish out sats.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
Great analogy!
reply