pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 23 May \ parent \ on: Which territories will not survive next month? And next year? oracle
The point was that it's something that's recurred as a topic and seems to have generated actual discussion twice (at least). And beyond that, I think it's something that makes sense in a forum built on V4V to discuss what kind of value people are getting; inherent to the notion that a territory won't continue is the idea that it's not worth the fees the territory owner is paying (which is not the same as saying it's a failure, because everyone has different value thresholds).
Go Ahead, point out "what kind of value people are getting" in "Has been interesting to see so many territories popping up in the past few months, some brave ones are still trying, but honestly, I cannot see how a territory could be sustainable, imagine it being profitable... atm is utopia!
Just for fun, which territories you think will be the ones being kicked out (not renewed) next month? And what about the ones out next year?"
It reads like "what do you guys think will be the losers of the coming month? And year?
If the post was structured and worded different, as in; "which territory seems to provide the most value to people, and receives back the most? Which doesn't?"
Then I would've reacted differently, but the above post is simply stupid.