could SN have dynamic territory fees based on engagement? \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

could SN have dynamic territory fees based on engagement?

1791 sats \ 31 comments \ @stack_harder 27 Jan meta

I find it quite interesting to read about the various territory owners, fees and game theory behind running a territory.

still, it does seem, to me at least, that running a profitable territory is quite hard because of the breakeven number of sats needed to earn and up-down nature of zapping and posting here.

what if a territory fee was in some way linked to engagement or like zaps earned, a bit how tax works on a sliding income scale?

is this a terrible idea? is something like that even programmable?

just made me think about someone who might want to start a more niche territory by nature, they would probably be logically put off because of lower engagement and not being able to afford it.

view all related items

252 sats \ 8 replies \ @freetx 27 Jan

It seems like having a minimum monthly fee (1000 sats?) and then SN takes a healthy percentage (50%?) would work better for all parties.

30 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Jan

The problem with that is it reduces the incentive to improve territories, because the owner only gets half the benefit.

With a big fixed outlaw and no tax, the owners are fully incentivized to improve their territories.

50 sats \ 6 replies \ @freetx 27 Jan

half the benefit.

But potentially much greater profit. Most territories are probably already less than 50% net profit....maybe even far less.

Probably idea structure is:

10,000 territory establishment fee (to stop spamming new territories)
1-5,000 monthly maintenance fee
50% revenue share

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Jan

I agree, but the point of the system is to create good territories, not profitable ones.

24 sats \ 3 replies \ @stack_harder OP 28 Jan

how are we defining good? I define good as somewhere with active participation back and forth, and quality discussions (although subjective). by virtue of a territory being good, it would be profitable I think as a byproduct.

Do we have agood territory here that is also unprofitable?

32 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 28 Jan

We're using it the same way.

Until a few months ago, all of the good territories were unprofitable, but now many of them are (at least on an accounting basis).

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder OP 28 Jan

interesting, is that becuase of the fee reduction and ability to pay in CCs?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 28 Jan

Two big things happened:

The share of fees and zaps going to territories quadrupled
Territory costs were cut in half

I don't know what, if any, impact cowboy credits are having.

reply on another page

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 27 Jan

I created bitcoin_mining territory because mining needs its own territory and I am waiting for sub-territories, i.e. mining will be a sub under bitcoin territory

Definitely not doing it for the money or profits

This is the closest thing to community service in my life

249 sats \ 9 replies \ @Aardvark 27 Jan

After 1 week of running AskSN I am slightly under break even. However, by posting two times a day I'm slightly above break even from zap. I currently look at as my responsibility to provide engaging or entertaining content while also engaging with people who post on that territory.

I don't know if there's a large enough user base to support a niche territory yet, because we're already a niche to begin with.

I think that this is a self solving problem because I expect SN to grow.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 27 Jan

This is my perspective as well.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder OP 28 Jan

congrats on AskSN btw, it's the perfect territory when you have a question that just doesn't fit into a specific territory.

do you think that there is a vicious circle/ chicken egg element where SN growth could be stunted by a lack of diverse and active territories catering to different interests?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 28 Jan

I don't actually know what the growth numbers are, so I'm not sure.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 27 Jan

Break even is good! congrats!

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @oliverweiss 27 Jan

I currently look at as my responsibility to provide engaging or entertaining content while also engaging with people who post on that territory.

But this must be time consuming, or? Do you think this is sustainable?

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Aardvark 27 Jan

Yes it is time consuming, and therfore shouldn't be looked at as an income. I want SN to grow, so I try to look at the entire site as a digital property, and my territory as my own little garden.

If I keep my garden we'll tended and fruitful, then it will raise the value of the entire property.

If you're goal is to make a profit, I think there's way better ways to spend your time.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @oliverweiss 27 Jan

Well, it’s not about profit, it’s about other things in life, kids, family, friends, yourself, etc.

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Aardvark 27 Jan

I have the time and I enjoy it basically.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @oliverweiss 27 Jan

Fair enough 🙂

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 27 Jan

I feel like this is like asking for a government subsidy. "My territory sucks, so I need SN to subsidize my investment." People that take the risks will get the reward. If you cant stomach that....I dont know what to say.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder OP 28 Jan

I think the difference is that SN has too low a number of active users to support a naturally less popular or more neiche territories. a territory could fail without it objectively 'sucking', just because of low engagement.

if there were a ton more users, it wouldn't be a problem because rising tides lift all boats.

now you could argue that if something isn't interesting enough then it doesn't warrant a territory, which is fair enough, but i think that would limit the scope of SN and hinder broader adoption.

a bit like how nostr is just 98% bitcoin content that puts normies off and stops it from becoming something that could and should take a share from twitter etc

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 27 Jan

It’s possible but I think things are good the way they are especially after the monthly fee got lowered from 100k sats to 50k sats. Not all territories will be break even at 50k sats but it is a reachable goal. If a territory is more niche and a passion project it may never be break even. When I started sports I didn’t have an aim to make it profitable, I was perfectly happy if the territory revenue plus my zaps and rewards I earned throughout the month meant I didn’t have to deposit sats to pay for the next month. It always did. I think that is a fine goal for any territory when starting out.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Jan

I think the incentives are best as is. Taxes reduce the incentive to excel.

9 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Jan

I always ask: why a territory should be profitable?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 27 Jan

I agree. If it was easy to make a profit running a territory, everyone would do it and we'd have territory spam.

I like that territories are costly. Reddit has a gazillion shitty subreddits because it's too easy to start one. The bar should be high.

Only a few territories should be profitable, and only because the founder makes extra effort to bring value to the territory users. All other territories should exist only because the founder is willing to pay to have that territory.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder OP 28 Jan

how does terriory spam affect you? you can mute people and you don't have to visit a territory (or a mute territory function could be added)

so what if reddit has a ton of spammy subs, just don't visit those subs. it's like getting angry at a donut shop because you don't like donuts, just go somewhere else and let the donut lovers enjoy their donuts.

reddit is shit mainly because it's a leftwing echo chamber (they would have a mirror argument about SN i expect ) and it's overly moderated. it's not shit because it has a lot of different subs, all those diverse subs are what made it as big and successful as it is

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 27 Jan

Fair point. However better to then just have monthly dues. 5-10K sats each month for every commenting member (non-members can still browse for free), then minimal fees to establish territory owners.

9 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder OP 27 Jan

i think that if you have enough money you can and want to spend sats to have a territory, it's all good.

but most likely for other stackers, if they are going to spend sats on something, there will be a normal expectation of at least breaking even

9 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Jan

how many times I have to post this meme until people will get it? million times?

the "profit" to make is not on SN... you should focus to make that profit in sats outside of SN...

https://i.postimg.cc/6qKD1kmy/LN-chad-adoption.jpg

32 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 28 Jan

Part of the motivation behind territory fees being high is wanting them to cost what it'd cost (best case) for a territory to be self-hosted. If I can make them profitable with the fees high, I can be reasonably certain decentralization is incentivized and doesn't require a critical mass of martyrs.

That said, lowering territory fees might be the most organic way for SN to grow. Because if territory founders are really profitable, they become better-than-a marketing department. They'd stop marketing to minimize regret, and begin marketing to make money.

188 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder OP 28 Jan

I'm not interested in starting a territory or anything, I do find the whole thing quite interesting from a behavior standpoint though.

looking at the general comments, it seems like most people go with the line that 'it doesn't matter if a territory is profitable if you want to make money, do something else'. personally, I don't find the expectation of some return, even symbolic to be outrageous, especially since most people here are free-market maxis.

but again, looking at the comments, basically, the current motivation seems to be public service/martyr . But, can SN grow to be bigger if it requires purely idealistic territory founders? if there are only a few neiche active territories, is that enough to entice and retain new people?