Stacker News Zen Mode? \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

2649 sats \ 36 comments \ @ek 12 Oct meta

Not something we plan to do if at all anytime soon—I literally just came up with this—, but still curious what stackers think about #720155:

This makes me wonder if stackers would be interested in a "zen mode" where you opt-out of rewards and ranking and every zap goes 100% to the recipient instead of our 30% fee for rewards and to make ranking sybil-resistant. The zaps would still influence your own feed but not have any effect on the feed of other stackers.

This might mess quite a lot with other code though. For eample, maybe the sats from such zaps should also not be shown to others stackers but only to you.

This is basically a proxy question for how much you like rewards as a part of SN.

/cc @Natalia, iirc you've been arguing in favor of a part of this: removing the leaderboard (if you're fine with only removing it for yourself and yourself from it)

My personal opinion is that rewards are a big part of SN's DNA and what distinguishes it from nostr social media clients as I mentioned in the parent reply:

People should only just zap and comment on what they think is good quality content that they relate to.

I agree. But imo rewards are what distinguishes SN from nostr and why there’s more broad zapping here than on nostr in my experience. This benefits everyone, just not everyone equally as you explained why.

“A rising tide lifts all boats”

view all related items

182 sats \ 6 replies \ @realBitcoinDog 12 Oct

I saw @ek bring up the idea of “zen mode” in @DesertDave ~alter_native post #720155

And so because of what I learned from @k00b and @DarthCoin in my controversial ~meta post #716073 I decided to zap this post 1000 sats to cast 3 votes.

This post has only been up 54min. It’s by a top stacker @ek. I haven’t even read the post. My goal is to just disappoint @grayruby and see if I can have fun gaming the system.

Something something @Undisciplined :P

No but really I actually might like the content in the ~meta territory most!

44 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 12 Oct

It will actually be an interesting experiment to see how long you can remain near the top of the leaderboard with one large zap.

71 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 12 Oct

You just inspired me that it would be cool to have a time series chart of the leaderboard positions.

60 sats \ 0 replies \ @realBitcoinDog 12 Oct

The rollercoaster. So it’s not just a snapshot but you can watch @realBitcoinDog and @grayruby jockey for position as leaders of Stacker News!

Call it: “@Darthcoin Deplorables”

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 12 Oct

Again seems that you do not get it 100%. It doesn't matter if you zap 1000 sats and the post get 3 votes or 1 vote. What you see as "top" is not the same as I see the "top".

Also if you zap a post in a territory that I mute it, I will not see it at all. But you see it as "top".

All this is just a game of sats. And I will repeat: spend your sats wisely.. Many people will remember my words in few years. I've been through these kind of games of "earning sats" in the early years of Bitcoin... Every satoshi count and when you spend it you must think twice for what you spend it.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 12 Oct

What you see as "top" is not the same as I see the "top".

Only hot is personalized, top is the same for everyone since a while

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 12 Oct

not if I mute several territories And most of the time I use "recent" not top of hot.

111 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 12 Oct

I could see something like this being attractive to some stackers. The difficulty would be in properly setting how much these opt-outers are still paying towards the rewards pool.

If I opt out of rewards, that shouldn't unilaterally make those zapping me or those I'm zapping forego their rewards.

34 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek OP 12 Oct

The difficulty would be in properly setting how much these opt-outers are still paying towards the rewards pool.

The idea was that they would pay 0 towards the rewards pool but would also receive 0 from it.

If I opt out of rewards, that shouldn't unilaterally make those zapping me or those I'm zapping forego their rewards.

This means that the receiver setting doesn't matter, the sender decides if they want a fraction to go to rewards or not. It's their sats after all.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 12 Oct

I think that would be the correct side to do it on, if you were to do it that way. Rewards are more of an incentive to zap than they are to post, so being allowed to opt out wouldn't disrupt that incentive.

You'd still have to have the sybil and territory fees, though, so would this just be the 9% of a zap that went to rewards now going to the territory?

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 12 Oct

Territory fees for posting would still apply. It's only about zaps. Territory post fees would continue to go to founders and rewards since they exist to counter spam. So even with zen mode enabled, one would fund rewards with post fees (but still receive 0).

You'd still have to have the sybil and territory fees, though, so would this just be the 9% of a zap that went to rewards now going to the territory?

No, these zaps don't influence ranking (and also might not show up on the items for others but that's tbd if we do this at all) so no sybil fee needs to apply to zaps but territory fees.

For example, zen mode disabled:

100 sat zap = 70 to receiver, 21 to founder, 9 to rewards

zen mode enabled:

100 sat zap = 79 to receiver, 21 to founder

Also see #720171:

What zen mode means could be adapted to only opt-out of rewards and ranking though but still pay a fee to founders ~~with~~ which they can allocate to rewards or themselves.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 12 Oct

and also might not show up on the items for others

That would address one of my concerns. We know there is an inclination to read and zap based on how many sats a post has earned. On the other hand, not showing them would effectively punish the OP's for receiving zaps from these opt-outers.

If a founder wanted to zap their own posts (in their own territory) to make them look more successful, there would be no disincentive, since they now hold onto all of those sats.

I'm on the fence about this proposal. I'd be very careful messing around with SN's special sauce though.

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @grayruby 12 Oct

How would this work for territory owners? Would they still receive territory revenue?

50 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek OP 12 Oct

Exactly, another problem that is included in:

This might mess quite a lot with other code though

Suddenly having zaps that are excluded from fees basically impacts everything to some degree.

But the code for such feeless zaps could also be used to fix pools on SN. I think pools on SN don't care about participating in ranking anyway.

edit: I realized I didn't answer the question: No, they wouldn't receive territory revenue from such zaps if we really want 100% to go to the recipient. What zen mode means could be adapted to only opt-out of rewards and ranking though but still pay a fee to founders with which they can allocate to rewards or themselves.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 12 Oct

It’s interesting because I used to use zaps and rewards as a way to cover the prize pool shortage due to fees on buy in zaps, but that’s not feasible anymore since you guys went to 30% (as an aside I think you should try 20, imo 30 is too high- although the extra territory revenue is nice). So now we are doing payment by invoice outside of SN.

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 12 Oct

Maybe rendering lightning invoices in comments would already work well enough within SN for you. Pasting a lightning invoice is essentially an opt-in to allow stackers to opt-out of ranking and rewards, lol. And with BOLT12 it can be a full replacement of the zap button since regular BOLT11 lightning invoices can only be paid once.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 12 Oct

I tried bolt12 for the first time earlier this week. Very cool.

51 sats \ 4 replies \ @Satosora 12 Oct

I would be interested in hearing this. Would there be a way for the leadership board not to be funded, and SN just zaps better? Or if only the people that want to participate in the leadership board are the ones that fund it. I dont know if that would work or not...

20 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek OP 12 Oct

You mean using?

Would there be a way for the leadership board not to be funded, and SN just zaps better?

What do you mean with "not funded"? You mean no donations? What have donations to rewards to do with this?

Or if only the people that want to participate in the leadership board are the ones that fund it.

I think that's what this suggested zen mode would do

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 12 Oct

Sorry, I typed a lot more as I processed my thoughts.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 12 Oct

No worries, I also updated my comment to reply to your updates

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 12 Oct

I feel because of the donation of 100k, people will game the system. And there are people that consistently do in my opinion. I realize funding the leadership board is important in some ways. But if it were only funded by the people that want to do the leadership board, then the overall funding would be less, so they would probably move over to the zen system and actually post good content instead of assmilking polls and daily reviews. Or maybe we can cancel the leadership board on Monday, Wednesday, Friday?

33 sats \ 2 replies \ @Taft 12 Oct

My personal opinion is that rewards are a big part of SN's DNA

I agree with you. However, I like the reward system that was before Million Sat Madness.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 12 Oct

So without the leaderboard and a longer tail?

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @Taft 12 Oct

Exactly!

33 sats \ 4 replies \ @Garth 12 Oct

I am not here for rewards but was wondering how they worked

Does a percentage go to the site for maintenance? I’d be more interested in that

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek OP 12 Oct

When you zap someone, only 70% go to the recipient. From this 30%, 70% go to the territory founder and 30% to rewards.

See example breakdown in #692153.

So this means none of these fees go to SN. We make money on territories so we have to balance the interests of founders who pay us for territories but receive whatever revenue they generate and interests of stackers who only get rewards.

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @flat24 12 Oct

I thought SN takes its share of that 30%. I personally am comfortable with the 30% fee. And of course with the rewards, although my initial focus here is not to earn SATS but to learn more about Bitcoin. You can't deny that the reward system is an added value, it's nice to receive a reward after a hard day of work on SN. I also have my days where I haven't received any of the rewards, and that makes me understand that it's because I didn't work hard enough on the platform and it drives me to work harder on SN to be able to aspire to some reward.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 12 Oct

I thought SN takes its share of that 30%.

That's a common but understandable misconception because many services use tx fees as revenue but we're different.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @flat24 12 Oct

Ok I understand, that's why you are destined to be the greatest. keep working. to reaffirm -so... of the 70% that goes to the owners of territories. is where SN then takes its share when that owner makes his payment each month to keep his territory running-

thanks for clarifying my doubt

29 sats \ 5 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 12 Oct

Incentives? Kill incentives? What kind of idea is that? How many stackers are you willing to loose. You could go to X or Buttbook and do something like it. Isn’t the idea of rewards woven through the whole tapestry of Stacker News? To rewrite the code may be a bit tedious.

10 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek OP 12 Oct

Isn’t the idea of rewards woven through the whole tapestry of Stacker News?

Exactly but I was curious if my perception of Stacker News aligns with the perception of others here.

Also, this would only be opt-in. Rewards won't disappear unless literally everyone opts-out but that case would mean no one wants them anyway. Only stackers that want rewards would fund rewards. It's a "freedom-increasing" feature.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 12 Oct

Again, I ask, how many stackers to you think would desert the platform with the reward incentives removed? An awful lot of people work on the basis of “what’s in it for me”. Those might be the ones that desert the ship. Wouldn’t the quality and quantity of discussions degrade? The does not sound like fun. BTW, there are stackers that do not give rewards to respondents or original posters. Could they already be operating on those principles?

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek OP 12 Oct

Again, zen mode would only be opt-in and only affect your individual experience.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 12 Oct

Ok, I understand! It woluld be optional for each individual as they chose.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek OP 12 Oct

Exactly