pull down to refresh
52 sats \ 23 replies \ @grayruby 13 Sep \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
They are clearly only zapping high value stackers content that is likely to end up as top posts as a strategy to earn sats. Sorry, I don't agree that is value added. That is gaming the system but if you are good with it then so be it. I don't really care about earning sats, pretty much every sat I have ever earned on SN has gone back into the community but personally I would rather see the largest pools of daily rewards sats go to stackers who are actually participating in the daily discourse on SN not judiciously zapping.
Your site though so if you think someone zapping top stackers content early so they can earn thousands of sats in rewards and doing nothing else on site adds more value that people who are posting, commenting, zapping, getting zapped, that's your prerogative but I think most stackers would disagree.
That's my position. I don't want to debate it further. You incentivize what you want on your site.
I didn't mean to sound like I was debating. I was trying to share more context.
They are clearly only zapping high value stackers content that is likely to end up as top posts as a strategy to earn sats.
fwiw I looked at what they are doing and that's not what they are doing.
reply
Ok so then you are suggesting that we should all be merely trying to replicate their behaviour as that behaviour is more highly valued than creating content, commenting and engaging with others.
Zapping and getting zapped. I realize you have a difficult problem creating a mechanism to avoid spam and sats farming and trying to make it costly for those that try. Maybe the system isn’t always perfect and there will be anomalies but quite honestly the implication that they deserve their position because they are creating more value than some of the amazing stackers that are below them in the rewards ranks is mildly offensive to me.
reply
I'm not trying to make a judgement about who is valuable and who isn't - especially to me. I was sharing that our ranking algorithm requires brave souls zapping great, widely appealing, content early, which very very very few people do, and so our reward algorithm compensates for that.
I was trying to share the assumptions made when the algorithm was designed. I'm sorry it seems unfair. I want it to be fair.
reply
I understand the problem you tried to solve in creating a value based system.
And I understand your point that for good content to be elevated it needs people willing to read it and zap it early.
I just find it odd that the system so heavily values early zapping alone as a metric that someone can do this.
I don’t think 100 stackers trying to do what they are doing would be good for SN.
Yes there is a cost to trying to do what they are doing but after it works once they are playing with house money because they zapped 400 sats and got 4800 in rewards. That gives them a lot of runway and every day they are in a net profit it further encourages the behaviour.
reply
they zapped 400 sats and got 4800 in rewards.
That too on a daily basis!
How can someone be so accurately zapping daily? Can you do it? I can't.
reply
I don’t think 100 stackers trying to do what they are doing would be good for SN.
I believe this would actually fix the problem and it's why I'm not too worried about it.
My understanding is that part of the outlandishly large return is that it's very important to be first. If many more people were attempting this strategy, they would eat into each other's winnings and all would be lower in rewards ranking. It also makes a big difference coming in as the top zapper vs the 2nd or 3rd, so more people trying this would rapidly make it less fruitful.
We saw this with a certain vampire character a few months ago and that fizzled out.
reply
It was an exaggeration. But in that case you are right if everyone was doing it it wouldn’t work. My broader point was if everyone was trying to optimize for sats rewards in the most efficient way it wouldn’t make for a very great SN experience
reply
No, I've tried it. It didn't work for me.
reply
I agree with that.
What I would say is that since this strategy doesn't scale, it isn't a big problem. At most, one person can make significant rewards this way, while everyone else gets rewarded for normal good behavior.
I'd argue that it's acceptable for the rewards system to have this minor vulnerability, if it works like we'd want it to otherwise.
reply
I just find it odd that the system so heavily values early zapping alone
For context: 50% of the rewards "score" comes from zapping. One person can earn a lot doing this not because it's disproportionately rewarded but because so few people do it. It's like winning a gold metal in a sport no one competes in.
Perhaps we can skew rewards to people spending more money, but the idea was to reward "good pickers" who might be poor.
reply
I sub to Siggy. He posts something I get a notification. I zap it immediately because it is Siggy and I support everything he posts. But then I go in and read it and probably comment and go back and forth with Siggy about it.
But that is less value than if I had zapped 2 minutes earlier and not said anything.
Sorry but that seems intuitively wrong to me.
This implies we should all just be playing a game to try to buzz in early like jeopardy but not actually provide an answer when we do.
reply
reply
I don’t even think the algo (value system) needs to be changed I just think the community needs to be able to step in and downzap enough to knock them out of profitability for a day or two so they change their behaviour and either go away or share more. And if they want to play the noble soul and just read and zap, then log in as anon and do it or donate all your rewards to the rewards pool. It’s very clear their motives aren’t solely noble (I want to find good content and zap it)
Sorry to interfere
But it does feel bad when someone without making any contribution by posting or commenting becomes the top stacker. If by only zapping we can be in top 10 stackers that too regularly, which makes the behaviour suspicious.
reply