pull down to refresh
@Undisciplined
7,975,451 sats stacked
stacking since: #88718longest cowboy streak: 752npub1t49ke...rm3srw4jj5
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 24m \ parent \ on: Research in Public #05: Does btc price affect SN behavior? Experiment failure! econ
There was one month when the rewards were entirely based on zapping and another when they were entirely based on posting/commenting.
Maybe looking at those two months separately could tell us something about responsiveness to rewards for zapping.
Did you have any hypotheses about which users or territories might be more sensitive to price?
I could come up with some ad hoc, but it shouldn't really matter. As a general hypothesis, I'd expect those who have been more active for a longer time to be less price sensitive and bitcoin related territories to be less price sensitive.
why do people even choose to zap?
That's partially answered in this post, at least in a way that no economist would doubt. From what I could tell, for most stackers, zapping more has earned them a net positive return. That's why I was on such a campaign to get stackers to zap more.
lose too much data
Why would you lose data converting to real-time dollar values? The fixed effects would still be weekly and granular btc price data must be available.
The difference should just be that you're averaging the dollar value of posting fees paid per territory, rather than multiplying the average bitcoin price for the week by the territory fee.
As I'm typing, I realize it wouldn't be easy to back out the direct impact of bitcoin price. You could still compare the sensitivity of posting behavior to bitcoin vs fiat denominated costs.
I'm not a time-series expert either and it was probably the part of econometrics I struggled with the most.
Looks like they're from slightly before your time. I was obsessed with the rewards system early on. It's absolutely amazing applied mechanism design.
Well explained and I'm glad stackers get to witness a snag in the process.
Some random thoughts:
- Interactive fixed effects: If you assume BTC price affects users and/or territories differently, then you can interact the BTC price with the other fixed effects. That should keep the time FE from eating all the variation in BTC prices.
- The rewards system is relative to what other stackers are doing, so there are incentives for zapping and posting that are disconnected from purchasing power of the sats spent. It makes more sense to have stackers maximizing their net rewards than only being price sensitive to the input costs. Do you see the rewards earned by stackers? I'm not sure what the right way to include that information would be, but there might be something there.
- Can you aggregate the value of the sats on a finer timescale? If you convert the sats to their dollar value at the time of posting, then the within week variation in bitcoin price would keep the time FE from absorbing the price information.
It's always tough times up there. NW Alaska is a barren wasteland. That's why there were only 1000 people who needed to be evacuated from an area the size of California.
Yeah, to that final point, it seems odd to recommend buying gold based purely on it's recent aberrational performance.
Is there some notion that these patterns run for longer than five years, so we're likely in a new paradigm?
The way I was thinking about it, any of the hot or rough start teams could also be contenders.
I wanted to highlight that we were expecting something different from them and maybe aren't convinced yet by their records.
Someone from the AFC has to be a contender and the Chargers are more complete than Buffalo.
I think the issue this year is that no one is all that good.