pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 8h \ on: Stacker Saloon
working out the game theory for removing trust from ranking is simple, but tricky for rewards because when you sacrifice enough (via the sybil fee) you may be able to recoup your sacrifice in rewards ... which makes it no sacrifice at all when you self-zap. downzaps are some defense against this if they're incentivized but would lead people to downzap rivals potentially without sacrifice too.
one solution to this would be randomizing rewards. meaning we'd randomly skew the reward distribution away from the top content by just enough to make recouping one's sacrifice unlikely. but if top content is defined by sats, even skewing away from top content would still slightly reward self-zapping.
another option is to continue using trust but only for rewards.
reply
Would another solution be to randomly select one zapper each day who gets the whole days rewards?
This would incentivize creating a multitude of accounts and zapping a little from each, so perhaps there needs to be another qualification: zaps at least a certain amount, or zaps and comments.
I remember when we had the somewhat random rewards function that varied the criteria. Maybe it's that sort of model, but with a random winner function, like a lottery.
reply
reply
That difference makes sense.
The truly random option you describe in another comment (#1286158) probably makes more sense. But the dopamine lover in me thinks it would be pretty awesome to take home the whole pot.
I suppose it would be possible that someone figures out an optimal zapping strategy that would lead to a reliable gain of sats (thereby defeating the purpose of Sybil fees).
This could happen with a reward spread out over some random segment as well, but not for a single big winner.
reply