141 sats \ 18 replies \ @didiplaywell 19 Jul \ parent \ on: For the Love of Territories, Zap Big and Zap Often meta
Yes, I agree with this. The proper solution to me is crowfunding. For the most cherished territories there are at the very least 100 active stackers that could donate sparingly throughout the month to reach a 1000 quota. And if the territory is that used it wouldn't even need that much. If people gives out 100 sats in a day, each day for ten days, for posts and comments, why wouldn't they (and me) for the territory itself? For that there has to be a way to make it feel natural to zap the territory just like with any post. And that could be a ranking of territories, like "most rewarding to users".
These are some good ideas, but isn't the more straightforward solution to subject territory costs to market pricing? Or an auction mechanism?
reply
At first I see it exactly like a P2P, where your territory is the exchange marketplace, and users can pay a small fee for a right to place an offer (which must always be there to decrease spam), and then you get a fee from the exchange (in this case, the zap a reader gives to a post). I think abstracting things down to a P2P exchange actually solves a lot of situations.
reply
The current fee structure is too rigid
How many territories are archived per month?
reply
I haven't taken the time to think through what the right mechanism would be, but you're right that a uniform cost is probably sub-optimal.
I would hazard a guess that some sort of auction would be best: perhaps having an earning goal in mind and selling enough territories to meet it.
The problem there is that I think they want people to be able to create territories instantly and don't want to be organizing and running auctions all the time.
reply
It could even be an option on your posts, to forward sats to the territory.
reply
I though it was working that way already, maybe percentages should increase?
A neat balance would be to make publishing on the territory cheaper, but make percentage on the gains bigger. Both parameters should be adjustable by the territory owner. Maybe even granting better deals to the stacker with bigger trust scores, to incentive fidelity.
reply
They get half of the posting fee, so it's a fixed amount per post.
I believe the idea is to roll out far more policy levers for territory owners in the future.
reply
reply
That and the referral upgrade (which seems to be working really well). I'm sure there's no shortage of things on k00b's to-do list.
reply
Ok, then yes, a policy on a percentage on the gains should be implemented. That's a better deal, because it allows posting to be cheaper, so that you don't risk much in case of bad performance, in exchange of maybe paying more in gain percentage than would solely with a fixed post fee, if the post is successful enough. That sounds like a much better balance and would motivate people to publish more often, for maybe the high post fees are also a reason posting is relatively meagre.
reply
maybe the high post fees are also a reason posting is relatively meagre
That's part of the spirit of this post. We can directly address this, before the SN team develop new tools, by just zapping good posts a little more. The posting fees only seem high, because of the expected return on posting.
One way or another, it comes back to us and how much we're willing to support the content we want.
reply
It does comes back to us but protocols are important if we aspire to be a large scale community. It can't just reliably be left to good will, a proper protocol for calculations must be in place so that everything just self-balances. Pure applied libertarianism, for the same reasons.
reply
I'm not really making an appeal to good will. I've made the pure appeal to rational self-interest elsewhere and mention it here.
This is more of an appeal to taking responsibility for sustaining the world you want to live in. If people want these territories to continue existing, they should be aware of how important their support is for that.
reply
Yes, I agree. People has to feel it in a more evident manner tough. Only there we will filter who's really interested, because many might just don't care at all if SN disappears tomorrow and if we are permeable to that attitude in excess SN will start rooting from the bottom up. That implies that calls to logic will only be received by people who already behaves correctly, and will be religiously ignored by people that doesn't care at all. The virtue of a proper scheme is that it not only allows well behaved people to operate in a more organic way, but it will also filter out the people that will use what's left to good will to profit from it at the expense of others. Regardless of the POV, the answer is always the hard cold scheme that drives the compass.