pull down to refresh

48 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scoresby 19 Mar \ parent \ on: SNIP 941216: Stackers set reply fees meta

couldn't we also just set a limit to it that is 10x (or some reasonable multiple) the territory-set comment fee?

write
compose
203 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 19 Mar

Are you asking if it is possible or whether I recommend it? I don't recommend it, but then I don't recommend any financialization. Which lands on deaf ears with 99% of stackers and 99.999999999% of the non-stackers, so it's probably the best to do the opposite I would recommend, lol.

reply
60 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 19 Mar

in my loose way with words, most likely I was asking for an evaluation of such a proposal.

I fear that I too am hard of hearing. I figure comment fees in general are there to put a cost to replies. Making them variable seems like a handy way of allowing stackers to figure out what that cost is.

reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Mar
some reasonable multiple

Ok, comrade

reply
50 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 19 Mar

I'll amend it: "or a multiple set by the territory owner"

reply
103 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Mar

I am noodling on a more robust fee system that includes the input of multiple parties.

This change is just to make SN a bit more fractal-like.

reply