SN Territory Rent in a bull market \ stacker news ~meta

3270 sats \ 72 comments \ @grayruby 6 Mar meta

Don't shoot the messenger. I am the biggest proponent of territories, which is why I feel comfortable being the one to raise this question.

I think most of us believe we have entered or are entering a bull market for the USD price of Bitcoin. Since the launch of territories on Dec. 5 the USD price of rent has gone up almost 60%. To be fair, 1 sat= 1 sat and if you are active on the site you likely cover rent through rewards. I don't mind the fiat price has gone up because we probably need some territory attrition with 50 plus territories. That being said, if Bitcoin doubles or triples from here territory rent is going to start getting kind of expensive in USD terms.

Do you think SN territories at some point soon will need a dynamic pricing model to maintain a certain fiat range, or a periodic static price reduction and persistent reevaluation as Bitcoin price rises?

Yes- Dynamic pricing is needed35.6%

Yes- Periodic Price reduction needed13.6%

No change needed-maybe later16.9%

No change needed- just send the fn sats33.9%

59 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

5309 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury 7 Mar

My rent came due, and I finally, moments ago, ponied up the 3m. Wish I would have fucking done it day 1, it's enough to hurt now.

I guess also a statement about how invested I feel in this place. Will be interesting to see how my feelings evolve now that I'm committed to this level. The first thing I've observed is the reflexive "I just paid it, don't you dare lower the price" thing that I hate when other people do -- pulling the ladder up, as it were.

Fresh introspective wisdom -- that 3m at work.

238 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bitman 7 Mar

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 7 Mar

Appreciate the thoughts. Good on you to pony up the 3M. That’s a serious investment.

1030 sats \ 31 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

The relevant thing will be if the rent is becoming less affordable, since our SN rewards and territory revenues are getting more valuable at the same rate.

We were talking about this a bit in the ~econ crowdfunding post. What might need to happen pretty soon for committed territory owners is ponying up the 3 mil for permanent ownership. Doing that may require pooling resources together, so we'll need the SN team to come up with some kind of joint ownership option.

125 sats \ 26 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

Yes 3M was always the best option but the timing just happened to be a bit unfortunate as they launched as the price started to skyrocket and I don't think anyone wanted to go the permanent route until at least seeing how things would work for a few months.

The value of our revenue and rewards should keep increasing as well with the bitcoin price which theoretically could offset the rent cost increasing for people like me who consider revenue and rewards as a means to breaking even on rent. However, I do wonder as price rises if rewards and zaps will get smaller as people mentally value their sats at a higher rate even though we should all be valuing sats more than we do.

165 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

We'll see. "Number go up" suggests people are becoming more interested in bitcoin, which should correspond to more SN users.

I also hypothesized recently that the higher stakes of this month's challenge is leading people to zap more, because that's how you get more rewards. More valuable sats could have the same effect.

68 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

Agree we will see.

89 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 6 Mar

as they launched as the price started to skyrocket

Sorry, we were actually making jokes in the background how SN will start the bull run with the launch of territories.¹

The value of our revenue and rewards should keep increasing as well with the bitcoin price which theoretically could offset the rent cost increasing for people like me who consider revenue and rewards as a means to breaking even on rent. However, I do wonder as price rises if rewards and zaps will get smaller as people mentally value their sats at a higher rate even though we should all be valuing sats more than we do.

Yes, that's a good point that @Undisciplined raised. I am again talking mostly for myself—we didn't have much discussion regarding territory pricing internally and I'm talking for myself almost always anyway—but my opinion is that we shouldn't reprice, at least not too early.²

As you probably know, the price can be pretty unpredictable so we don't want to make any changes that "distort the market for territories". However, the moment we change the price, it's clear that we do change the price and a significant amount of people might start trying to time the market by reading stuff that isn't there into whatever we write here or bother us with asking for more updates.³ So we can't not distort the market. Even just talking about "our plans" (that don't exist) feels like distortion or even market manipulation. Price updates feel a bit like forking bitcoin: If you fork it once, what's stopping you from forking it again? As history shows us, apparently nothing.

This would also play into @TonyGiorgio hands since he likes to mention that territories are essentially securities and with updating the price (in whatever direction), we might indeed kick-start a market for territories (as @DarthCoin thinks I am already doing with territory transfers for some reason).

So in your case, I would not anticipate any change in price on any timescale. Consider it to be a constant in a sea of already too many variables on the path to break even or even being profitable. For example, some territory churn might even be desired. Maybe in some absolute crazy way, we could compare territories to bitcoin mining: if one goes down, every other territory generates more revenue because attention is less dispersed?

But obviously, I am very biased and I might just mean "just spend 3m sats and get peace of mind" so you shouldn't listen to me anyway so I'll stop with unintentionally manipulating any dark net markets.⁴

With "we" I actually mean mostly myself ↩
Simply writing "at least not too early" already makes me feel like I am manipulating a market that doesn't exist. ↩
Not saying that posts like these bother us, but I hope it's clear that if we update the price, posts like these might become more and not less as one might intuitively think. ↩
No, there are no dark net markets for SN territories. It was just a joke that wasn't necessarily even meant to be funny. More a lack of me being able to express how I feel talking about this topic. ↩

110 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

hahaha that will be hilarious to see SN territories auctioned on dark net markets !

32 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 6 Mar

Apparently, you just need to say there will be dark net markets for SN territories and then it will become true since you are always right!

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 6 Mar

Come on, say it Darth!

Maybe I should transfer ~oracle to you (for free even) since you're obviously the best oracle out there

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

nah is more fun like that

reply on another page

184 sats \ 1 reply \ @doofus 6 Mar

Dare I say, you get the territory at the price you deserve.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

and you get it good and hard

106 sats \ 7 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

I think @siggy47 had a post saying that buying a territory for 1 year is more like an investment, or something like that. Wise words.

50 sats \ 6 replies \ @siggy47 6 Mar

Yes. I think I was talking about the 3 million outright buy. @grayruby and I are on the same page there. The timing was a little off. A few months earlier and I would have made a one time buy as a long term investment.

52 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

Be sincere (I know you are always sincere ):

Did you open a territory to earn some sats ?
Did you just want to cover some way the cost of the territory with the sats earned from it?
You don't care, you just wanted a territory to manage it, as experiment or whatever ?

482 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 6 Mar

I'll try to be as sincere as I can, since I haven't given it much thought. I probably should have. I definitely see territories as an investment. When I first discovered SN almost two years ago I read about the beginning of the project. There was a venture capital raise. I wished I would have been able to invest at the beginning. So, when territories were announced, I wanted in. I wanted a chance to invest in Stacker News. I knew the territories would not be profitable at the beginning, but I did want, and expect, to eventually earn sats on two of them: Booksandarticles and bitcoin beginners.

I hoped, and still hope, to earn enough sats from them to support the third territory, dogs and cats. I never really saw that as a way to earn sats. I wanted that as a way to aid bitcoin adoption. It may seem stupid, but I just have an image of older, crazy cat ladies posting cat memes and trading photos with each other using sats as their money, even if they don't fully understand what sats are. I know it's crazy, and a long shot, but it might happen.

62 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

That's funny. I assumed dogs and cats was your shameless cash grab and the other two were more service oriented.

98 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

Siggy want to donate those sats to the raccoons center so will not bother him again. Is for a good cause. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

reply on another page

36 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 6 Mar

Shhhh. I almost convinced them

reply on another page

62 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

Thank you, very well explained.

63 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff 6 Mar

I'll take the under.

Avg zap amount per user drops, hugging PPP.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

Will it drop faster than the rate SN grows, though?

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 6 Mar

However, I do wonder as price rises if rewards and zaps will get smaller as people mentally value their sats at a higher rate even though we should all be valuing sats more than we do.

This is the major danger. For now, as you mentioned, it doesn't seem necessary, but I agree it might become necessary in the future. However, in this case, it would also be fair that if the price decreases, the rent becomes more expensive. Perhaps it's an idea without much sense, but what if the rent were variable based on the territory's revenue? With limits, of course.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

Many ways to square the circle I think. Which is why I wanted to get everyone's thoughts. I don't think anything needs to be done right now.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

The value of our revenue and rewards should keep increasing

See? You open a territory with the profit for yourself in mind. Some others will open a territory for something else, not for the sats mainly.

175 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

Yes I am in it for the profit for myself. That's why I have spent 400k sats and made 14k sats in revenue. I am all about the profit. You caught me.

If I was in it for the profit I would 10x the territory post fee.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

Ah no, I am not judging you for that. Is OK for me.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

I opened the territory because I was the biggest proponent of territories and thought they would add value to SN which in turn would get more people using SN and thus using bitcoin for zapping.

I did not expect or need to make a profit but yes it would be nice to at least break even.

26 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 6 Mar

so we'll need the SN team to come up with some kind of joint ownership option.

I can disclose that @k00b and me actually discussed something very similar to this today

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

I'm pretty sure one of you discussed it somewhere previously.

26 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 6 Mar

since our SN rewards and territory

The big unknown will be: Will people still zap at same rate if price goes up X? I mean obviously it breaks down at some point....considering $1M BTC will people zap $1.00 per post?

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

Really we just need SN to grow at a rate that makes up for any decline in individual zapping.

1235 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

I knew I was kicking the hornets nest here. Haha.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryotosensei 6 Mar

I sense that you don’t really feel “apologetic” about it though haha.

I voted for dynamic pricing. I think the best thing for SN to grow is that Stackers know exactly what to expect in a plethora of scenarios. I feel that there’s a cognitive load involved in adjusting to a periodic price reduction that can be best channeled towards growing a territory.

To use a lame example, it’s like arriving at school and realising that I have to do two periods of relief that day. Suddenly, I have to shift my entire schedule haha. I know price reduction is good news, but nonetheless feel that the cognitive burden associated with pivoting remains.

My 2 days’ worth

161 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

If people want dynamic price... that means they are still living in the fiat mindset and always try to make the conversion.

Only stackers with big balls will not need dynamic pricing because those will KNOW EXACTLY the value in sats of a territory.

People should stop "valuing" sats in USD. Instead you should start valuing products and services in sats. Sats are money. Money do not have a certain value. Are just a medium of exchange. Products and services HAVE VALUE. And that value is determined by FREE MARKET (demand and offer for that item).

I raised this question right when these territories were started: #342479 Darth was right again. Sorry @ek 😂😂😂

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 6 Mar

Darth was right again. Sorry @ek 😂😂😂

No need but I don't see how a simple transfer is a marketplace for territories haha

But you do you Darth, I seem to appreciate you in whatever form unfortunately

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

That's fair. We all want SN to thrive but if territories aren't worth the cost of sats as determined by the free market either SN folks will need to make an adjustment or the experiment will fail.

50 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

Every failure is a new beginning... You start over with a new method if something doesn't work as you expected.

158 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

That's just an extreme form of dynamic pricing.

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

😂😂😂

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotRugged 7 Mar

Easy to say. Sats are valued at the distance of time between now and when I have to spend them, taking into account probability of price change (which in the near term can only be seen as unpredictable, and in the long term can be seen as better than any other place to park it).

368 sats \ 3 replies \ @kr 6 Mar

interested in hearing thoughts from stackers and territory owners.

one thing i’d ask is that if you want some kind of dynamic pricing or new pricing model, it would be helpful to hear how badly you want this too.

is this a huge problem? or just a small inconvenience?

there are lots of tasks for SN to prioritize, so the added context is helpful.

208 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

I don't think it's a big problem right now. Was just curious how others are thinking about it.

That being said if Bitcoin goes 3x from here I don't know how many territory owners are going to want to spend the equivalent of $200 USD a month on what is essentially a passion project at this point.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @mo 6 Mar

it will mean will be less territory owners, and much more quality and thinking when founding territories. For now, we are still experimenting. When price rise, will be no space for playing around, most of the RE will be established, maybe a subterritory market will rise? Will be the functionality available then? Who knows...

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotRugged 7 Mar

That will be the general direction of the incentive, but unlikely to be either linear nor the only force at play. For instance, the more it costs, the less poor people will have a say. But another variable, poor people with a profitable territory are fine. Also, law of large numbers - it takes a lot of time and people and territories for general incentive probabilities to play out in reality.

327 sats \ 4 replies \ @mo 6 Mar

Honestly, I do not like sports, especially if driven by gambling and easy fake money-making. I do appreciate athletes much more. Please don't take me wrong, but I smell a bit of fiat mindset here!

I'd say sat-price it's likely to increase, not decrease! Bitcoin value expressed in $ does not matter. I'd not say is an investment either, because that way you'll be driven by profiting from it (still part of the dirty fiat mindset).

If instead your intent is to create value the sats will come back, but you should not expect anything, if not just having fun on the way. If you aren't seeing the results you hoped for, then change strategy, adapt. in the worst case scenario, you learn the lesson and start something new ;) so yes, in this case the investment is for you to learn, but not for profiting.

Having just one owner for territory is still part of the fiat mindset (at least from my perspective). What I'd like to see are functionalities for people to contribute in a much more collaborative way to territories.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

That's ok. I am sure there are things that you like that I don't.

Thanks for the feedback. I am not in it to make a profit. Thus far I have spent 400k sats and earned 14k sats in revenue. I am not asking for a price reduction. I am asking the community if they think as Bitcoin's pricing power grows the price of territories should remain the same. If Bitcoin's purchasing power increases by 2 or 3x for everything else in the world, should things priced in sats (territories included) fall as well?

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @mo 6 Mar

I totally understand, and is a fair question to ask due to the current volatile circumstances. You're maybe missing the small detail that also SN will grow 2 3x too... maybe!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

Yes that would be the ideal scenario and I think territories are part of that growth opportunity which is why I posed the question.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mo 6 Mar

You're still paying rent... Owning is a totally different experience ;) Think about real estate, do you ever heard someone asking a bank to decrease the monthly payments? Yes sure, you can refinance and find better rates, but the monthly fee will never decrease. Or maybe I'm wrong... have no experience with that!

142 sats \ 7 replies \ @030e0dca83 6 Mar

What about halving of price every 210000 blocks?

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar

I like that way of thinking. It addresses the issue without appealing to fiat.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

Interesting. Tying price with halvings might be a good solution. You will still probably be paying too much in the bull markets if Bitcoin absolutely skyrockets but might be getting a good deal in the bear markets.

20 sats \ 4 replies \ @030e0dca83 6 Mar

It's like a stackerNews improvement proposition. Maybe one day @k00b implements price policy that will follow Bitcoin value

42 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Mar

implements price policy that will follow Bitcoin value

Bitcoin is money. That means itself doesn't a "value". That means is a medium of exchange. Products and services HAVE value in sats.

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @030e0dca83 7 Mar

Ok. Are you pro or cons of reducing value in sats for territory?

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 7 Mar

80 sats \ 0 replies \ @030e0dca83 7 Mar

Take my 100 sats as sacrifice to the system

153 sats \ 2 replies \ @jeff 6 Mar

If 100k sats buys a car or a month of a territory, im gonna buy the car, and not the territory rent.

USD can gtfo, but nothing is immune from purchasing power.

54 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

Everyone mentioning fiat to me doesn't seem to comprehend that it doesn't matter if you look at it in fiat or bitcoin terms when Bitcoin rises in fiat value it's purchasing power for every good in the world, except those statically priced in Bitcoin, increases.

53 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff 6 Mar

Yah, and zap-amounts are going to drop, as they are linked to purchasing power. Even if zappers claim otherwise.

So the yield on a territory will drop, relative to purchasing power.

If the team behind SN doesn't acknowledge this, just like any other business that ignores economics, the demise is inevitable.

72 sats \ 0 replies \ @topical 6 Mar

No dynamic pricing please… but discounts during bull market would be great! Like 20% off or 50% depending on how high we go

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @gd 7 Mar

I don't think so, like you said— 1 sat = 1 sat.

I support us moving to a Bitcoin standard, otherwise what about GBP, EUR, RUB pricing too? The community is larger than the US so dollar pricing is a regression in accessibility.

Just my 2 sats!

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 7 Mar

I voted for 'no change'. Obviously, if we don't see any decline in reward system, why is that necessary to decrease rent? 1sat=1sat here. When people can afford to reward in sats, territory owners should also afford to pay rent in sats. And I know, it wouldn't cut down unless the reward system lowers down to 'say 0.5 or 0.1 sat' which I don't see happening anytime soon. Also this isn't anyting that we Stackers would like to welcome.

50 sats \ 2 replies \ @TNStacker 6 Mar

If a Sat is a Sat WTF is this?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby OP 6 Mar

It's just a poll to get people's perspectives.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @runningbitcoin 7 Mar

I also think it’s an exercise to think in a new (arising) monetary system with variables dynamically interplaying: value created in a territory, price discovery, and network growth. Also renting vs owning. It's like putting a fresh spin on how we see economics.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotRugged 7 Mar

Use Bitcoin's halving model and/or block adjustment model.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 6 Mar outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.

Footnotes