pull down to refresh

@ek
Since CCs cannot be sent outside of SN, then rewards fees need to be taken into account in any "open market" exchange. Does that mean 1sat=0.91cc now?
Cf. #935412


🐂ish

Analysis of the market for cowboy credits:

#840977

reply

Oh - this is great, thanks!

reply

1cc=1sat forever as far as SN is concerned.

reply

I have been intentionally facetious about all of this.

My personal view is to keep the ccs flowing by frequently zapping good content. That way, they are value accretive and this exchange business can be left alone.

reply

Another view is to realize that the half-life of a CC is two zaps

reply

Right.

value accretive

posting/commenting/zapping correlates to adding value to SN[1] and whether you use ccs or sats hopefully there's a return - at least in the sense of growing SN - on your investment.

More posts = more reach = more users = more sats/ccs flow

  1. in the best cases

reply

I only actually got a little over 1k CC's, because of the sybil fee. It didn't seem worth making a stink about, though.

The question is if CC's can be sent directly to another stacker's wallet with no fee. Otherwise, the fee on zaps is 30%.

reply
30%

So if he zapped you 1300 then why didn't you get 910? Is there a fee I'm missing?

reply

It shows 1300 on the comment but he received 910. We show the amount that was spent, not the amount that was received.

reply
I only actually got a little over 1k CC's

It sounds like he got even less maybe

reply

Just looked up the comment, it was 1443 and 70% of that is 1010.

edit: but two zapped this comment, so not sure how much were for the trade.

reply

I didn't realize it was two zaps. I had just checked it in my statistics, which showed 1443 zapped for 1010 CC.

reply

You can see it if you click > details on an item

reply
two zapped this comment

Wasn't me.
I assumed he paid 1300, as was offered

reply

bc he zapped 1443 CC's

reply

Ahhh I see

reply