pull down to refresh
1030 sats \ 31 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Mar \ on: SN Territory Rent in a bull market meta
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.
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.
reply
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.
reply
Agree we will see.
reply
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
Footnotes
-
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. ↩
reply
hahaha that will be hilarious to see SN territories auctioned on dark net markets !
reply
reply
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
reply
and you get it good and hard
reply
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.
reply
reply
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 ?
reply
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.
reply
That's funny. I assumed dogs and cats was your shameless cash grab and the other two were more service oriented.
Thank you, very well explained.
reply
reply
Will it drop faster than the rate SN grows, though?
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
Ah no, I am not judging you for that. Is OK for me.
reply
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.
reply
reply
Really we just need SN to grow at a rate that makes up for any decline in individual zapping.
reply
reply
I'm pretty sure one of you discussed it somewhere previously.
reply