382 sats \ 28 replies \ @ek 19 Sep \ on: SN release: biggest boost wins, 70% of fees to territory founders, 30% sybil fee meta
Example Breakdown of Zaps
100 sat zaps before: 90 sats to receiver (10% sybil fee) + 5 sats (50% territory revenue) + 5 sats (50% rewards)
100 sat zaps now: 70 sats to receiver (30% sybil fee) + 21 sats (70% territory revenue) + 9 sats (30% rewards)
Getting zapped is nerfed, while rewards are powered up.
I'm excited to see how it plays out. That 30% cut is probably going to make it so we stop using zaps for our various pools, which is a little disappointing.
reply
Yes, that's a valid point. Maybe the president doesn't like pools.
reply
Yeah, for the survivor pools and such that's gonna be interesting. I've added 2k to 5k sats to pools I don't even particularly take part of. What's a work around do you think for the pools and such, which I think are one of the aspects of the community I enjoy the most!
reply
We'll just have to do lightning invoices and then trust whoever's running the pool to do the accounting honestly.
reply
I agree but also hate that "trust" haha. The NFL Survivor pool is like 350k sats.
reply
reply
Either way we're trusting the person to actually pay out. The only real difference would be a lack of transparency about how large the pool is.
reply
True true. I suppose I had wishful thinking, but I also trust GrayRuby as he has incentives by owning the sports territory. Uneducated question, would DLCs or Cashu/Fedi mints be a solution in the future for something like a trust less pool? I'm not too familiar with either however.
reply
No idea. I think reputation can handle this for the foreseeable future.
reply
reply
A zap button on our profile solves that.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Thank you for this, it’s very helpful
reply
reply
It's 420% of the previous income share, though. English to the rescue, where math failed.
reply
reply
Great phrase: "Streets ahead" is verbal wildfire!
reply
Pierce Hawthorne
reply
I would go even further: 50-60 sats to OP and the rest distributed.
reply