508 sats \ 10 replies \ @elvismercury 17 Nov 2023 \ on: Stacker Saloon
It's kind of rude to ask questions about a feature that doesn't exist yet, but I'm curious what the sub-board design will look like, the assumptions underlying it, and the features it will include to support the design goals.
For instance: you can imagine that sub-boards could be administered by a moderator; and then the mod gets to say "these are the rules to be here" a la Reddit. But what if the sub is about a contentious topic (e.g., religion, politics, the block subsidy) and douchebags show up to the sub trying to DDOS everything with asshole comments from multiple accounts, etc?
Then I thought: what if a sub could have an "ante" where you have to ante up some number of sats if you want to post, and the ante is timelocked so once you ante, you can't withdraw for a while. The sats are held in reserve in a sub-sub-wallet (ha!). If the user is an asshole, the mod can sweep the funds into the SN rewards pool.
Obviously you can imagine ways the mod can abuse this; but you can also see how market incentives provide strong abuse counter-incentives: a smart mod would be judicious about funds-sweeping, and would make a case for why she was proposing to sweep. If the sub got a bad rep, people would stop anteing up and the sub would quickly die. But there would be a public record of the action, and the user's actions pre-sweep, so people could decide for themselves.
Like the SN version of free-banking. Market in action. Only possible using btc / LN.
We've been calling this
staking. It's a feature that https://sphinx.chat has had for a long time.It's been brought up a few times and I totally agree that we should add it as an option for sub founders. It hasn't made sense to add it to existing subs because all of these things slow growth, but one of the reasons I'm very excited for subs is that we'll hypothetically have tons of subs/economies with different rules running in parallel and competing.
Frankly, I'm open to adding all kinds of governance knobs for sub founders. As an extreme example of something interesting yet not something I'm sure we want to do is supporting coercion. It's something real economies have so why not virtual ones? If participating in subs (ie being a citizen in a territory) is opt-in, sub founders could maybe have some form of government and rule to seize assets of its citizens found guilty of being an asshole or levy more than just "sales tax." I don't think those subs would be popular but I don't actually know. Some people probably want to yield a gun and others probably prefer living under a gun yielded in way that they like.
tldr MVP won't have staking but I'd be happy to add it after the MVP.
reply
Damn, @k00b! I feel like we're explorers venturing into a new world. Exciting times. I'm glad your imagination matches your technical abilities.
reply
reply
Going to start an toycoin where you can stake and earn wield.
reply
make it "cowboy-coin" that stake bullets for shitcoiners....
reply
If moderators were able to set the price for posting in the sub, wouldn't that give them the ability to head off your douchebags? I guess the point is that people behaving well can get their antes back, but I would imagine they're the ones getting zaps and rewards for their posts anyway.
reply
I think setting a baseline posting price (e.g., every post costs x) is roughly isomorphic to the ante idea, but different enough that it might feel different in practice. I'm not sure, though!
I imagine that posts costing 100 would result in different douchebag behavior than a douchebag anteing up 10k, knowing that he's going to be a douchebag (surely that's not a surprise to him, although who can say) and will consequently lose the 10k. It's like you're paying 10k for the exuberance of making a shitty post/comment that will be deleted in short order; and then your subsequent antes will simply be sent to SN rewards, so it's basically one and done.
(Is there an easy way to post the "sats" symbol, btw? How do people do that?)
reply
I'm the wrong person to ask those last two questions.
I see your point about the antes. I wasn't thinking about how a refundable ante could sustainably be orders of magnitude larger than posting costs can be.
reply
Being curious and wanting to understand something better is not rude. It's being proactive. For me, that's a positive mentality to have.
reply
You're right, in general. I value wanting to understand, too.
Maybe I could have said it this way: devs hate answering questions about stuff they're in the process of figuring out, partly bc they've probably discussed it ad nauseum, or even documented the answer somewhere already, and either way, answering the question takes away from the time they could spend shipping the feature, at which time your question will be answered if you would just shut up and let them work.
:)
reply