Do you think it would be unreasonable to fundraise for territory fees? \ stacker news ~Ask

pull down to refresh

Do you think it would be unreasonable to fundraise for territory fees?

2386 sats \ 36 comments \ @Public_N_M_E 9 Dec 2023 Ask_SN

100k per month is the fee for a territory. Does SN feel that it would be unreasonable of territory founders to do a fund raise post in their territory to cover the monthly fee? Or even stack up enough to cover yearly fee?

Yes, that's unreasonable.9.1%

No that's not unreasonable.51.5%

Do it anyway and see the reaction.39.4%

33 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

550 sats \ 3 replies \ @kr 9 Dec 2023

i think that’s reasonable, in fact it may be a good gauge to determine what the SN community actually wants.

One could say something like “if this post gets X sats, I’ll start a territory on Y topic.”

Of course this requires a lot of trust, and I can see how this can be gamed by new users that simply want to extract sats, but it may also provide a useful signal.

Another alternative is to set up an SN poll with a few territory ideas for people to vote on, so you have a better understanding of what people want to see before setting one up.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @POTUS 9 Dec 2023

Do you have any knowledge on why territory fees weren’t paid last night?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kr 9 Dec 2023

no, looking into it

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

Could be a great indicator going forward For sure. And I agree, if the community values the territory, then a fundraising post should hit it's targets.

33 sats \ 16 replies \ @Wumbo 9 Dec 2023

You payed the 10 Sats to post. It is your thread and your choice to post what you want.

0 sats \ 15 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

Sorry, I guess the question I was asking was would it be unreasonable of me as a territory founder to request sats (by way of fundraiser post) from that community to cover the territory rental fee of 100k per month. Effectively trying to get the community to pay for it's own territory rather than my own personal funds.

21 sats \ 9 replies \ @siggy47 9 Dec 2023

At this point I don't think it's unreasonable. SN is transitioning to a for profit model, as it should. It's not there yet. There's a donate button on the rewards pool. Just keep in mind that you are earning a portion of the fees generated by your territory, and you are paying for that privilege. Is it worth the price now? Almost certainly not. Will it be a bargain in 5 years? Who knows? That's the risk you take.

248 sats \ 8 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

Agree, things get muddy when you take into account the founders fee you get daily (although not today it seems) however, 100k sats has to come from somewhere. We shall see if it continues to come from my stack or the communities.

21 sats \ 7 replies \ @siggy47 9 Dec 2023

Yeah. No rewards today. We are both taking a chance. If the community wants the territory it will probably be okay. If not, I'll let it go after a few months.

211 sats \ 6 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

Absolutely, I'd just feel it was a shame to lose a territory that people have engaged with and asked for because of affordability. But everything here is ruled by sats, if the community want to keep the territory alive. They'll vote with their sats. A very use it or lose it stance.

21 sats \ 5 replies \ @siggy47 9 Dec 2023 freebie

Well, you and grayruby are in a different position, since you started building before all this. You both already have demand and an established community, so for you it's definitely warranted. For the rest of us it's unknown. We're starting from scratch. I would feel uncomfortable asking for donations if the community hasn't shown they want the territory in the first place.

234 sats \ 4 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

You're right that does put myself and GR in unique positions. And I suppose with that position and pre-established community there does come a (perhaps unwarranted) expectation that those territories would pay for themselves after an initial start up. But what I'm seeing is although some new faces popping up and making posts, I'm seeing very little zaps on those posts. So either people just aren't zapping, which goes towards what I mentioned on another post with @Car or alternatively they're just not interested in the content being provided. If it's the 2nd one, fair enough content creators need to adjust but if it's the first, it'll take a while and quite a big sinking of funds to keep floating until those new users start to be more zap happy.

view replies

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Wumbo 9 Dec 2023

In my opinion, it is not unreasonable.

I am dubious that you will get enough sats.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @kakocuro 9 Dec 2023

Makes sense, but then you should also distribute the earned sats back into the community.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

Completely agree. If a fund raiser gets done. Once the fees are covered (if the fees get covered) the remaining sats (can't speak for all territory owners) will be sent straight to rewards pool. I think that's the right thing to do. I'm NFP but I'm also NFL ;)

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kakocuro 10 Dec 2023

Could be an interesting feature in SN @k00b where a territory gets fundraised and then the earnings from that territory get split automatically.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

As am I, but there's only one way to find out really.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff 9 Dec 2023

I voted "unreasonable", but its more nuanced than the poll provides.

Until users can leave/toggle off/unsub territories, its unreasonable. It will become reasonable once that feature is ready. Until then, it goes into the "begging pile" for me...just kindof a turn off.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

I get what you're saying. And I do think we should be able to view only territories that we subscribe to. But when it comes to a fund raiser for those territory fees, I had expected that only users of that territory would be contributing to that fund raiser. Otherwise like you identified it would be unreasonable to ask the whole of SN to pay for territories that not all of them use.

I'd love to hear what nuances you think need addressing as I'm very interested. This territories thing is all very experimental and lots needs to be ironed out.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 9 Dec 2023

It's going to be interesting to see how this change affects the economics of this place and the ecosystem, as territories niche down and attract traffic you can be sure advertisers will want a piece of those eyeballs and be willing to pay to advertise or run promoted content in that territory

Ones that don't generate users, engagement and eyeballs will just have to die, let the market decide

21 sats \ 11 replies \ @POTUS 9 Dec 2023

@Public_N_M_E did you get paid for your territory fees last night? Mine never came through

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

I didnt no. Also didn't see the usual rewards come in either?

21 sats \ 9 replies \ @POTUS 9 Dec 2023

Yep I’m the same way

57 sats \ 8 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

@koob @kr @ekzyis any thoughts on rewards distribution not coming out today?

(Could easily be that we just didn't qualify for rewards today @POTUS, but territory fees not showing is odd)

51 sats \ 1 reply \ @Zepasta 9 Dec 2023

Btw your k00b tag is wrong

9 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E OP 9 Dec 2023

Yes it was. Because I'm an idiot 🤦 cheers for pointing that out. I'll bet this isn't the first time I've made that mistake 😂