pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @d01abcb3eb 10h \ on: Research in Public #07: The incentive structures on Stacker News (WIP) econ
This is interesting work, and as far as I gather this is internally sponsored research that aims to show the positive sides of SN. Nothing wrong with that, but may be helpful for the reader to keep in mind for understanding the demarcations.
I have maybe one nit comment:
Maybe it should be: Unprofitable users are more likely to become inactive than profitable users, and this difference is amplified when the Bitcoin price has recently appreciated. But idk.
A higher-level comment is that I think an underlying unmentioned assumption is that the fees charged to post/zap hits everyone equally - at least approximately. Of course 1 sat is 1 sat, but it might make a difference whether 1 sat is one ppm of one's stash or one ppq. Does this get factored in somehow?
I'm eager to follow how this research develops.
Thanks for the feedback!
internally sponsored research that aims to show the positive sides of SN
Actually, no, and I should probably make that more clear. SN has no editorial control over the direction of the project, their involvement is primarily in regards to providing the data and consulting on how best to understand the data. I wouldn't work on the project if they tried to exert control over what I am or am not allowed to say.
Unprofitable users are more likely to become inactive than profitable users, and this difference is amplified when the Bitcoin price has recently appreciated
Definitely better, thanks!
A higher-level comment is that I think an underlying unmentioned assumption is that the fees charged to post/zap hits everyone equally - at least approximately. Of course 1 sat is 1 sat, but it might make a difference whether 1 sat is one ppm of one's stash or one ppq. Does this get factored in somehow?
No, it's not factored in. However, we're not assuming that the fee hits everyone equally. We're estimating an average effect across all users, basically.
reply