pull down to refresh

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.
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 8h
officer, it'd be nothing like a lottery
also, we wouldn't want it to be random in proportion to their persons (which encourages sybils), we'd want it to be random in proportion to sacrifice (no advantage to sybils).
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