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.
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
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 13 Sep
I'm not saying you're wrong.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 13 Sep
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)
reply
There are a few bones I want to pick, too. But I was waiting for the private messaging to happens so I could talk to some individuals privately. But I do agree with grayruby.
reply