236 sats \ 4 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotNet 20 Mar \ on: Million Sat Madness is a Keynesian Beauty Contest meta
Elegant I'm into, clever I'm not.
If incentives are going to be experimented with, in complicated ways, then they need to be diversified / decentralized. One way is as you've suggested - 25% each in 4 different timespans.
I would go further, 1% from 100 different ideas of how they should be divvied. 'You get 22 sats this week for @Undisciplined 's algorithm, which was chosen at random based on the 14th alphanumeric character in the most recent bitcoin block to clear. click here to see how it works.'
That would be inferior to a very simple, very understandable, elegant solution that most mirrors laissez faire understanding of human action.
I'm thinking 1% goes to the house. 4% goes to the rewards pool, which is split among all who posted anything zapped, and all who commented anything zapped. It would be nice if the rewards pool could further be limited to verified human beings.
The ultimate eventuality is that the rewards from my zaps get split among my web of trust how I see fit, but the ideal WOT has not yet been specced.
In that case, I would still be for 1% going to the house, but go to .1% when the userbase increases 100x, and 0.01 at 10,000. And perhaps 1% going to a general pool that is split among arbitrary federations defined by network data visualizations that group WOT blobs.
The ultimate eventuality is that the rewards from my zaps get split among my web of trust how I see fit, but the ideal WOT has not yet been specced.In that case, I would still be for 1% going to the house, but go to .1% when the userbase increases 100x, and 0.01 at 10,000. And perhaps 1% going to a general pool that is split among arbitrary federations defined by network data visualizations that group WOT blobs.
Sounds great!
Networks of influence (trust). These blobs represent a group of people, but they can also represent a topic (music, enco, etc.). ?
When will it be ready for use? :)
reply
I've floated similar ideas for highly randomized rewards structures. I like your approach of not only randomizing parameters, but also randomizing the model.
Your other idea for weighting the distribution of rewards from zaps according to WOT is not something that had occurred to me. It's an interesting thought.
I think the important thing is just that users are rewarded for zapping good content and that they don't know precisely how that is determined.
reply
I like your last bit and agree - but the devs and those who can read the code will always know. Therefore it must be transparent and fully understood by all, IMO - another reason to go for simple and elegant.
Important to minimize the ability for those who game the system to have an advantage. I'm thinking one way to do this would be to value zapping 1 sat the same as zapping 1000, for those who zap themselves back and forth. So 'if zapped_at_all = true' then 'tickets_in_reward_pool += 1'. each person ever zapped gets one raffle ticket for every time they get zapped. the idea being it costs more to spin up a new npub, and zaps 1 sat at a time for each npub will get costly. then redistribute to all whose raffle tickets get drawn, provably random (ish?) by open source + blockchain (?)
reply
it must be transparent and fully understood by all
Something like you proposed could be equally understood by all and yet almost impossible to game by any. We would all know the set of possible rewards structures, but none of us know which one will be chosen. All we know is that they all have the feature "Zap more -> earn more".
reply