264 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 2 Mar \ parent \ on: SN Million Sats Madness: Scarcity or Abundance Mindset meta
I just think it screws up incentives, which are so important to Stacker News. Truth be told, I didn't like the random rewards that just ended either. I felt like it encouraged attempts at gaming the system and I never heard a good argument in favor of it. This is much worse, in my opinion. I see no benefit. It's human nature to try to win. This contest is easy to game. I like to think I wouldn't do that. I don't think you would either, or the other stackers I have gotten to know here. That's not the point. We're bitcoiners, seeking trustless systems, and now this contest requires a good deal of trust. It also pits stackers against each other. It excludes less successful stackers. It screws up stacker cash flows that some here count on. Rent is coming up for most territory owners in four days and a source of income has been arbitrarily removed without warning. I know people disagree with me, but I think it's a terrible idea.
I don't see any upside.
Thank you for your reply. Now I understand that you are upset (?) because the competition runs counter to what you believe should be the differentiating feature of a BTC-related platform: trustlessness. Hence, if we were to follow strictly the ethos of BTC, we would not have let this experiment have a place.
I agree and I also think differently. Now that SN is flourishing better than ever, I think it’s a good idea to run a stress test to determine how Stackers were to respond if certain structures were gone. Of course, there is the saying “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”, but let’s say there comes a point in time where Daily rewards have to be sacrificed to pay for operational costs, will we Stackers adapt well to it?
My two sats’ worth