393 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr 21 Jan
shout out to @9 for the inspiration!
reply
116 sats \ 0 replies \ @9 21 Jan
Wow, that was so fast! Thank you!!
reply
Committing to zap upon clicking a link removes a stacker's discretion to check a link or post before rewarding with sats. Spammy bot links will probably be rewarded out of curiosity. Personally, I don't like rewarding naked links, but I won't be able to check for context before an auto zap occurs. This proposal rewards indiscriminate zapping. Can you imagine when bot farms find out about this? I know I can opt out, but I still wonder what's the point? Zapping is supposed to incentivize quality content . Is this a solution in search of a problem?
reply
173 sats \ 1 reply \ @joda 22 Jan
I was wanting this a year ago on Nostr, mostly just for fun and to promote zapping (and test the integrity and throughput of the custodial wallets/nodes). I do think it should always be "opt-in" however. But you make a good point about incentivizing clickbait. I hope and suspect that the community here can deal with that on a case-by-case basis.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @9 22 Jan
I created a script to autozap on primal.net
reply
I agree with the comment there, sats per an amount of time. If it were a slider - 1 sat per: second, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, etc - and then a maximum - I would use it. Or if it were 1 sat per post opened and not closed immediately when found to lack any context worth pursuing it or found to be a clickbait in some other way.
reply
I spend a fair amount of sats downzapping low-quality stuff. I don't want to concurrently reward those posts, even if I click on the link or add a comment to invite the OP to do better. I understand the incentive for raising this Issue on Github, but one should think carefully about possible side effects...
reply
Auto zap will be a game changer for the value for value model on SN
reply