There are second order effects here. If I bring your attention to something valuable you'll likely zap me back.
Sure, but I am talking more about the optics of it than the pure economics. I am not suggesting I wouldn't pay to tag people.
I suggest a poll to see how the broader community feels about it. With all due respect, I think you are looking for a solution for a very narrow problem here, I am on SN every day multiple times a day and maybe get tagged once a day.
reply
I think some of us are pretty cavalier about tagging @k00b. I suppose we could cut it out if that would solve the problem.
reply
158 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 9 Feb
It's not a problem when folks like you all do it. It's when people who've been here a week think I need to hear every thought they have.
reply
I should probably lead by example, though. Don't want to add to any scaling problems.
I still like the idea as something that might be useful long term.
reply
158 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 9 Feb
I think it'll be a must have at scale. But importantly opt-in/out as everyone will price their milkshake differently.
reply
Unless I need to request a feature or ask him a question I usually just use k00b so I don't tag him with the @
reply
I agree with all of @grayruby's points, but I like @k00b's idea. I especially like making it user customizable. It's sort of a super chat analogue then.
If we want to keep being mentioned a lot, we can just set it at 1sat and I'm sure no one's going to care about that. If we start feeling like we're getting spammed, then it's better if we can be compensated for that cost of using SN.
Maybe this can lure in some big fish, too.
reply
209 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 9 Feb
We'd leave you the option to keep it 0 sats and most people would leave it 0 I'd think.
But for celebs and stuff, it might help to have a little economic back pressure.
reply
I there is an option to keep it at 0 then it's great.
reply
250 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 9 Feb
Excellent
reply
Hmmm compelling.
reply