Stacker News- an experiment in enabling global use of Bitcoin as a payments protocol and self moderating and funding social media experience.
Bitcoin was created as a P2P payment protocol.
Its creator knew that to reveal his identity would be to imperil both him/herself and the protocol.
So it was created to be capable of operating without any founder or centralised owner.
It was and remains an experiment in whether you can operate a monetary system via an algorithm and blockchain in a decentralised manner.
Bitcoin treats all participants equally without fear or favour while being resistant to censorship.
This presented a real challenge to the fiat monetary system that dominates all MoE globally.
Most autocracies banned the use of Bitcoin as a MoE while the 'wests 'liberal democracies' imposed more subtle barriers to use short of an outright ban but relying more on subtle tax obligations which make lawful use of Bitcoin as a payment protocol effectively impractical...while allowing its use as a speculative commodity and the accumulation of more and more Bitcoin into speculative holding where it would not be used as a P2P payments protocol.
Today there are very few opportunities to use Bitcoin as a payment- a few businesses accept it - but very few and far between.
The idea of using Bitcoin for micropayments in V4V social media platform via a second level Lightning Network had been suggested and provided a potential use case where Bitcoin could be used regularly and often.
Stacker News was established to test this idea.
Central to the idea was that all posts and comments cost those making them while consumers of content can reward content providers with real money (BTC) payments made in appreciation for the content.
Spam would be minimised as it costs to post or comment anything.
Good content would be rewarded with real money while nonsense and trolling would not earn any reward.
This had the potential to show BTC in use on a global scale.
Stacker News started and was growing, attracting decent content providers and consumers.
But the state stepped in and threatened to prosecute the platform on the charge of custodying and transmitting funds.
At that point Stacker News opted for a compromise solution using an inhouse token known as Cowboy Credit and where participants could attach a Lightning Network wallet the option to still use Bitcoin.
This change introduced substantial complexity and entry barriers to new participants if they wanted to still use sats.
Many did attach LN wallets but some did not.
Many chose to only attach a receiving wallet so that others could zap their content and they would receive any sats sent, but they would not be sending sats if they made payments.
The whole model had always required enough content consumers with attached wallets paying real money into the system (or buying CCs with real money) for it ever hope to be a viable economic concern.
It never happened.
There were never enough people buying content with BTC/sats for the SNs economy to become self sustaining.
The shift to a hybrid model created too much friction and ambiguity for content consumers to join and fund the platform.
The introduction of CCs was a bit like the end of the gold standard- CCs were not real money- they were not Bitcoin- they could be used without limit by Stacker News but had no value outside of the platform.
Many content providers cynically only attached receiving wallets so they could still milk real money (sats) from other participants, but if they ever paid for posts, comments or zaps they would only be using CC shitcoins.
The Stacker News economy never reached exit velocity- it has been an interesting attempt to build a platform that could have provided all people globally with a place and use case to use Bitcoin every day.
But this opportunity for Bitcoin use as a P2P payments protocol of global reach looks to have been obstructed and killed by a combination of state pressure and human greed and selfishness.
Could such a model still succeed?
Yes quite probably.
There are Bitcoiners globally who would want to use Bitcoin in such a way.
How could it be improved?
The complexity and ambiguity introduced by having to use an inhouse token would ideally be avoided.
This might be achieved by operating from a jurisdiction where you will not be threatened or at risk from state bullying and prosecution. El Salvador maybe could host such a platform?
Or using using the model of attached wallets from the start- this (probably) avoids the risk of prosecution and avoids the debasement of the platform economy with inhouse shitcoins- but is leaves the problem of attracting enough participants to reach critical mass and sufficient quality of content and users who will pay real money (sats) for that content.
Stacker News may be dying, but it has been a worthwhile attempt.
Learnings can come from it and adopted to build a stronger more resilient platform.
The V4V model of sensorship does work- more or less, but like any model of governance is a question of balance. When a small group of participants can lobby for change to suit their agenda other members of a community are likely to become disillusioned.
Getting the right balance in the algorithm is a challenge yet to be solved.
It probably needs to evolve- and Stacker News has definitely been part of that evolution.
The systems for attaching LN wallets have been developed and do work.
Using them did support the LN liquidity and development - to the extent they were used by participants.
Now that SDtacker News has officially conceded it is not primarily focused on achieving a sats saturated economy and removed the ability of participants to even know if other participants are operating on sats or CC shitcoins the end of the experiment is visible.
Freedom is never easily won.
But you can always keep trying!
Great breakdown. The shift to CC definitely changed the game, friction kills momentum in micropayment systems. Still, the experiment proved that V4V with sats can work. Maybe the next iteration just needs better UX and the right jurisdiction.
Good things come to those who wait!
What I learned being in this space a long time is how we often Bitcoiners cannibalize each other and people get so caught up in being the perfect bitcoin or but majority of people don’t even have a clue what base 58 means.
Don’t let the CC market and the stackers who only attach receive wallets take away how SN is trying to solve social media with economics. The best is yet to come.
I say this because stackers have a choice on how they interact with SN. While it may annoy you this platform is still being constructed on cutting edge technology that is completely open source and has a rag tag development team. It’s truly amazing it’s come this far with only one known investor.
Trying to control what other people do will drive you nuts
Good points although imo the balance has shifted and CCs are all that is sustaining the SNs monetary system now.
SNs is clearly not running at a surplus (and never has) and so the crucial input of real money (sats) from content consumers which was always needed if the platform was to reach a self funding level is now highly disincentivised as anyone taking the trouble to attach LN sending wallet cannot easily know they are being received like for like, or more likely absorbed into an increasingly debased inhouse token system.
Too many content contributors have shown they are only interested in taking sats out, but not spending any within the SNs economy. (horse but no gun)
The goodwill of any content consumers happy to pay in real money (sats) who were prepared to support a truly worthwhile project has been eroded.
How long the founder/s funder/s of SNs are prepared to continue subsidising an inherently loss making platform remains to be seen but without any credible path toward eventual profit it is probably not forever.
Maybe it can continue in some changed form based on volunteer labour but how sustained use of money as a moderator can be maintained depends on someone contributing it- and who will that be?
In the end people were more interested in taking out monetary value than contributing it.
That’s not entirely true. SN is not just about profit making and taking. The way you explain it makes it appear it’s all zero sum.
Plus CCs serve a function for users who may not want to deal with sats.
We don’t know what the Burn rate is for SN if people were only here to profit then many would have left a long time ago. Those who stay get value out of it.
Yes there is still value to be sure beyond monetary measures.
Many find a sense of community, social interaction and valuable content.
I have easily gleaned content value greater than what I have spent from my PoV.
But a business or non profit, ultimately needs to make a profit or at least break even to be a long term viable proposition.
The potential for SNs was huge- I would have seriously considered investing at start up if I have known, and clearly at least one probably more people, did.
All content consumers-net sats spenders were effectively supporting and investing in the financial model and ethos of the project.
But there were and still are simply too many intent on extracting monetary value.
Its a fine balance and requires serious integrity to achieve.
A start up cannot expect profits from the start- you have a time line and need to attract users and develop systems etc.
The potential for a model of sats denominated P2P V4V social media platform was and still probably is huge.
But it faces many obstacles including government obstruction and human nature.
Both played a part on SNs failure to achieve the momentum required to reach break even and beyond that ongoing sustainable development.
It is a real loss but one that learning can come from.
If at first you do not succeed, learn from the past, and try again.
For now though I believe SNs is in a downward tailspin and will now probably never achieve economic viability- though I would love to be proven wrong!
There is simply not enough real money flowing in...and ever increasing reliance upon CC shitcoins which can be issued to infinity and we all know where that leads to.
But CCs are created from sats
You can purchase shitcoins with sats too.
That does not mean shitcoins are created from sats.
CCs are not money, or even shitcoins, they are inhouse tokens with no value outside of the SNs platform.
CCs are created on a centralised database and there is no limit on issuance.
They are shitcoin-fiat tokens.
Good luck with that.
I'm amazed somoene actually read that
You maybe struggled with The Bitcoin White Paper too...
At first I thought this should have been in the ~Music territory. I thought it said The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust and the spiders from mars:
https://www.bowiebible.com/albums/the-rise-and-fall-of-ziggy-stardust-and-the-spiders-from-mars/
Hilarious.
I ENGAGE WITH THE LIGHTNING COMMUNITY WHEN I BUY FUCKING CCS
LOOOOL
Not to mention that before CCs, most transactions were happening inside SN's node anyway.
Yes I cover that aspect in the post- introduction of attached wallets not not all bad- it provides a model of resilience although introduces higher barrier to entry. Its a mixed bag imo. I even suggest ways around those barriers.
Thanks again for all your constructive suggestions...
Yes, maybe once a month, if ever.
Good on you!
You can still find out by checking their profiles. Just two more clicks before you downzap!
Good to know that although its not obvious, but rather concealed by default.