More and more reddit posts referencing stacker.news - increase ⚡️ cost for posts/comments?
480 sats \ 20 comments \ @vijo 8 Jul 2022 bitcoin
See here and here and here.
This is bitter sweet to me. On the one hand it's cool to see awareness for stacker.news soar. On the other hand, smaller communities equal higher quality content in my experience.
If spam or lower quality content becomes a problem, we should think about increasing cost of sats for posts/comments. 1 sat is incredibly low imo. 100 sats for posts / 10 for comments might deter some low quality content.
write
preview
related posts
303 sats \ 4 replies \ @kr 8 Jul 2022
I think raising posting/comment fees to reduce bad content is reasonable. 10 sats seems like a good starting point.
A cool side-effect is that by raising posting and comment fees, Stacker News will also have far more sats to give back to the best users each day.
Right now there are roughly 2,200 new items created each week, which only generate 2,200 sats for SN to give back as daily rewards (1 sat per post/comment). This is a tiny portion of all sats SN earns, (the job board generates over 200,000 sats/week and boosts add tens of thousands of sats more).
By bumping the posting and comment fees to 10 sats, users may post slightly less, but it’s likely SN will still generate 5-10x more sats from those fees (10-20,000 sats/week) to give back to users.
As @k00b outlined in yesterday’s SN rewards upgrade, the daily rewards flow directly to the best contributors on the site… so by increasing the posting and comment fees, the best SN contributors should expect to see higher daily rewards.
reply
169 sats \ 0 replies \ @gmd 8 Jul 2022
10 sats for comment sounds good starting point- I think post should be higher?
reply
169 sats \ 0 replies \ @vijo OP 8 Jul 2022
Sounds good to me. 10 satoshis is still only 0,002$.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 8 Jul 2022
Or maybe where a fraction of the tip goes to SN? LIke 10% or something? E.g., if I tip a post or comment with 51 sats, the first 1 goes to SN as currently, then 10% of the remaining gives SN another 5. The content that I tipped gets 45 sats.
At SN's nascent phase, content (posts and comments) are too scarce yet. I wouldn't think raising the barrier(s) makes sense yet.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jul
This comment was featured on This Day in Stacker News.
reply
146 sats \ 0 replies \ @moon 8 Jul 2022
I think it doesn't make sense to start a project with the hopes that it doesn't grow. Hopefully Stacker News will take over.
Yes I think depending on the traffic it would make sense to rebalance the fees, maybe even have something that adjusts itself based on traffic automatically.
reply
126 sats \ 2 replies \ @tomlaies 8 Jul 2022
Spam and lower quality is no problem. The algorithm automatically lifts out the good content. It's free market - let the best posts win.
reply
141 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr 8 Jul 2022
Having zero cost to posting would make the recent tab full of spam over time… there should be some cost to posting things on Stacker News and making people filter through extra content.
However, I agree with your point about letting the free market decide. What if the free market chose the post/comment fee settings?
Over time, I think the way this could work is to enable anyone to create their own stacker news subs, where they can choose to set post/comment fees at whatever level they want, and then the free market of users will be able to decide which subs to participate on.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 8 Jul 2022
In r/Bitcoin there is a "Rising".
So maybe in addition to /recent (new), there could be a /rising (which likely will be pretty much void of low quality posts).
reply
123 sats \ 1 reply \ @shyfire 9 Jul 2022
I think 1 sat is good because anyone can afford it. I’m not convinced there’s a lot of spam on SN yet so don’t see the point of changing the default.
reply
69 sats \ 0 replies \ @Brunswick 9 Jul 2022
Maybe we should be thinking about this from a budgetary standpoint. If you want to reduce spammers, which will tend to be from new and low-activity accounts, than make posting cost go down as your reputation improves. Then set a decaying running-average posting price as a minimum posting rate for the best posters targeting a maximum site-cost per day or week. For example, you could have a three tier price structure based on reputation grade where low-grade reputation (new accounts) pays according to the present progressive pricing of posts, let's say it's set to ten cents as the base (500 sats adjusted monthly). In the second grade of trust, essentially community verified accounts, the base falls to 100 sats. Then the top tier (well trusted accounts) will pay 100 sats for the first post, 50 for the second new post, 25 the third, 13 the fourth, 7, 3, and 1 thereafter. The daily cost for the best posters would be well under 1000 sats which should be palatable to most anyone, particularly since a good poster will return his investment quickly with upvotes. The time since the last post will be factored according to the last posting time such that 24 hours will bring the rate back to the starting price. You may also consider charging more for posting and less for commenting such an 8:1 ratio.
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @premitive1 9 Jul 2022
I would prefer sub-stacks, so to speak
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @faithandcredit 8 Jul 2022
I think this is where subreddits come in because you can migrate to new communities while being on the same site.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @ok 8 Jul 2022 freebie
Maybe treat posting like bitcoin mining and adjust cost automatically to achieve a target average daily volume. Then we discuss whether we liked the post volume over to previous 2 weeks, which somehow gets used to set the next target.
But I suppose that's essentially what's already happening, just without a coded algorithm in place and with a more predictive model.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 18 Jul 2022
More people noticing an increase in spam / lower quality content recently:
Ways to improve links preview at SN #46489
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nice 9 Jul 2022
I think the current system is alright. I've suggested this somewhere else but I think one way to reduce the amount of spam and lower quality content is to just make the site invite-only. I don't think SN is at that point currently where spam is a problem. But thinking about it, current users can invite someone they vouch for by giving them an initial "liquidity" with a minimum of 100 sats.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @AJ 8 Jul 2022
This is a great discussion.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kilianbuhn 8 Jul 2022
A few posts with a few dozen upvotes are not the same as getting mainstream tho
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @EnormousPony 8 Jul 2022
Hot take: Are you more afraid of spam or less reward? Be honest
reply
107 sats \ 0 replies \ @kr 8 Jul 2022
In theory, the low quality content shouldn’t even factor into diluting the daily reward for the best contributors… remember, anyone posting spam (that doesn’t get upvoted by trusted users) won’t be earning rewards to begin with.
One side consideration is that as more users contribute to Stacker News, the sats earned from the job board and boost fees should also increase, as the audience of people that can be reached by an ad is much larger.
reply