pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @ek 22h \ parent \ on: SN release: drop territory costs, bug fixes meta
we don't know yet, all we know is that in hindsight, we probably shouldn't have added territories for life
What is the reasoning behind that regret?
I think lifetime territory founders have an incentive to build a community for life.
I spent the 3 million sats because I have every intention of building thriving communities that outlive me. I’m def playing the long game but my focus for now is driving new users to the platform so that we have more than ~1300 monthly users on SN.
reply
reply
To be fair to those founders, I don't think they want to disappear. They bought them for the same reason we created the
once option - it's way more convenient and gives peace of mind.I think that owning a territory is probably like owning a boat. Sometimes owning one is more enjoyable than being on the water.
I think we've also done a poor job of giving them reason to put effort into their territories. Lots of work to do on our end.
In the meantime, the
once option will remain. It might be good for all territory founders if we can learn to cope with this incentive problem.Maybe the reason behind their disappearance is not losing interest but the fact something happened to them - we're people after all.
P.S: This brings the topic about lifetime territory inheritance - do you think it's a good idea the owner of a lifetime territory to be obliged to add his heirs which after a reasonable period of inactivity to take charge?
reply
reply
Yeah, that makes sense. I have been super busy lately with a move and family for holidays but I am def here to grow the community for decades to come.
I think we need more users posting in more territories every day and I think many territory founders would agree.
After things slow down after the new year, my focus will be on attracting more quality posters and commenters.
reply