pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 20 Aug \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
Thought about the top boost demand-response theory. It would be a great way to maximize territory revenue to have scammer sats try to outbid honest boosts.
Morally, I think the downzap is better - because do we really want to make money off scammers trying to get victims?
I was pondering something else: Do downzaps go 70/30 to territory and rewards like fees? Would be better if these go 100% to rewards IMHO, because 70% is a huge incentive for territory owners to encourage crap content.
In the case of downzaps versus boosts, it seems that erring on the side of allowing visibility is better than erring the other way.
What I mean is: it's better to allow a scammer to boost and get visibility, than it is to allow a strong downzapper to hide content.
Reason: the tool we use to banish scammers can also be used by scammers to banish valuable content they don't want others to see.
Imagine a scenario where someone posts about a flaw in a project or bad behavior, if the owner of the project can banish such a post by heavily downzapping.
Don't we run greater risk to the community by allowing a strong power to hide information than we do by allowing a strong power to boost information?
reply
This only works with brigades. So having an unpopular opinion against a mob of fanbois with high trust score will mess you up. But nothing prevents you from posting again? But what's the point if there is a non-receptive majority?
Information wins, just boosts don't?
reply