pull down to refresh

71 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 1 Jun \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
Does this mean that the few stackers who zap 100+ will still have more power to influence?
Yes.
You'd better think carefully about the consequences of this change.
Okay.
write
preview
27 sats \ 4 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 1 Jun
few stackers .. more power to influence
So you want to keep giving a fraction of a penny and feel like your vote counts for anything?
On the flip side, I have absolutely no incentive to keep commenting or posting on this site. Why gate keep all of my data, content, and money for a couple pennies a day.
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby 1 Jun freebie
SN certainly isn't about making money. It's testing out how money can be used as a moderator. What sort of community is created when money is the moderator? Does it provide a better place to have the kind of conversation you are looking for? Maybe a 100 sat zap will do more to facilitate that than a 1 sat zap. Certainly worth experimenting with. But I don't think the number of sats a post attracts is the only sign of its success (however the poster might define that).
reply
27 sats \ 2 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 1 Jun
A negligible amount of money does nothing to prove out the concepts of money being used at all.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 1 Jun freebie
Fair. I wonder where the balance is though? Bitcoiners are notorious (possibly falsely) for not wanting to part with their sats. Previous polls/comments here lead me to suspect that a 1000 sat zap minimum would significantly reduce users. Yet $0.75 is still pretty negligible.
reply
37 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 1 Jun
For the record I wouldn’t enforce a minimum given the choice. I wouldn’t mind incentivizing people to zap more though.
reply