34 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek OP 12 Oct \ parent \ on: Stacker News Zen Mode? meta
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.
write
preview
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?
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply