52 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 2 Nov \ parent \ on: SN elects to go noncustodial on Nov. 5th - FAQ & AMA meta
Territory owners are paid in sats even if posting/commenting in the territory is paid in CCs. So it shouldn't affect revenue directly, but you might be saying it'll affect revenue indirectly?
It's a big hurdle for people new to bitcoin/lightning to have a wallet, let alone one that can interact with applications.
One alternative to CCs that we discussed a week or two ago is having zaps between people lacking wallets go straight to the rewards pool (so there's no custody+transmission between them). It's maybe the best alternative structure to CCs we've discussed. The main disadvantage to this is that if someone joins and doesn't attach a wallet, and people zap them, they don't get anything, so their progress (which would otherwise be in the form of CCs) isn't "saved."
I was thinking more indirectly but thanks for clearing up the direct impact. Although territory revenue like you said will still be paid in sats. Individual posts within the territory (my posts specifically) could be zapped entirely of CCs which is effectively a loss when compared to sat usage.
Specifically thinking about ~Music most of the posts in the territory are my content, getting territory revenue is one thing but CCs would negate the individual content posts income. However minor that is, is still relied heavily upon to foot the territory bills.
I do understand that territory fees can be paid in CCs which is great, but if we're getting a mixture of sats and CCs as payment for our content or value for our value, then are we able to pay the bill with a mixture aswell? Eg half sats half CCs?
I find the idea of sats zapped to non walleted users going direct to rewards and interesting one. Maybe in order to negate the need for CCs it may be necessary. But could you implement an automated message such as, "you've been zapped but there's no attached wallet to send them to, your sats have been sent to the rewards pool. Please attach an external wallet to send and receive sats" then maybe link a post on how to?
It is a big hurdle yes but with prompts and help, maybe it's one that can be overcome.
Appreciate your thoughts k00b 👊
reply
I do understand that territory fees can be paid in CCs which is great, but if we're getting a mixture of sats and CCs as payment for our content or value for our value, then are we able to pay the bill with a mixture aswell? Eg half sats half CCs?
Yes, that would be the plan.
Specifically thinking about ~Music most of the posts in the territory are my content, getting territory revenue is one thing but CCs would negate the individual content posts income. However minor that is, is still relied heavily upon to foot the territory bills.
The rewards pool approach wouldn't fix this exactly because you wouldn't get the sats you're zapped from those folks either - it'd go to the rewards pool. But, the rewards pool would be larger, and if you qualified for rewards, the sats you got in rewards would be larger.
But could you implement an automated message such as, "you've been zapped but there's no attached wallet to send them to, your sats have been sent to the rewards pool. Please attach an external wallet to send and receive sats" then maybe link a post on how to?
We were planning to do that with CCs, e.g. "you could've stacked sats but got CCs instead."
I do like the cleanness of the reward pool approach though. Adding another asset complicates things a lot. I'll keep thinking on it more.
reply
Thanks for clearing this up k00b, appreciate it bud.
You are doing great work trying to navigate the money transmission laws, thanks for all you do.
reply