Tiered Sybil Fee Idea \ stacker news ~meta

1249 sats \ 45 comments \ @grayruby 31 Oct meta

The 30% sybil fee seems to have been a boon to revenue generation for territories but I think it has decreased the size of zaps.

Today I paid 15k sats from the baseball pool to @BlokchainB outside of SN because 4,500 sats is quite a haircut. If it was just a 10% fee, I would have likely just zapped him as we have done in the past for pool payouts. I noticed @Coinsreporter also paid @siggy47 for the music pool payout outside of SN.

What if the fee was tiered based on the size of zap? For instance:

1-200 sats = 30% fee 201-999 = 20% fee 1000-9999 sats = 15% fee 10k+ sats = 10% fee

Obviously @k00b and @ek are busy with the shift to non custodial right now but might be something to consider in the future that allows territories to still generate additional revenue because most zaps are likely going to remain below 200 but also allow big zappers to feel like their zaps aren't being diluted and going to the deserved party.

Thoughts?

Sats for all, GR

view all related items

286 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 31 Oct

As someone who zapped k00b a million sats back in the day I never thought about the actual amount he got. The Sybil fee was much lower in the early days but now as a topic of this post I think it does punish honest big zappers.

I understand the idea of stoping scams but it does make people who want to do big zaps do it outside of the platform and with that SN is losing honest sat fee from die hard user to stop fraudsters from gaming the system.

Not sure what the solution is but it can be a problem especially those who like to zap large amounts to other stackers

128 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 31 Oct

Back then I don't think we had a sybil fee. We added a 10% sybil fee around the time that zap amount affected ranking.

100 sats \ 11 replies \ @ek 31 Oct

If it’s based on zap amount, you can just do smaller zaps that add up to the same amount. Also, the intention behind the sybil fee is to hurt, especially for big zaps since we don’t know if you’re zapping yourself.

From the title, I thought this is about tiers per stacker and territory where founders can lower their revenue on a stacker by stacker basis. That might be interesting.

232 sats \ 4 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Hmmm I see your point about zapsturbation but how do we encourage big zaps if we punish them. Maybe your idea about custom based on territory/stacker is a possible solution.

242 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 31 Oct

I haven't looked into any of the literature on sybil attacks, so I'm coming at this fairly blind, but would it makes sense to have individualized sybil fees based on our trust scores?

If we're zapping the same sort of content as other trusted stackers, then it's unlikely that we're an attacker.

Perhaps this could also be solved through a new post type: something like bounties, but with an unspecified payout and an ability for multiple accounts to pay in feelessly.

I can see the argument for not treating some of these zaps the same as ordinary V4V zaps, since they aren't sending the same sort of quality signal about the content, but it really would be nice to not have to do these transactions separately.

47 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 31 Oct

It would be great if territories had the economic control to implement @grayruby‘s idea and many others, bad and good.

144 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 31 Oct

Mhh, I guess we could still do this progressive tax, it would just mean that your first sat is taxed more than your thousandth sat.

In that case it wouldn’t matter if you zap 5k+5k or once 10k.

Maybe that‘s also what you meant, apologies if I jumped to wrong conclusions about your idea.

An inverse progressive tax indeed and 10% of big zaps might still hurt enough.

However, something to consider is that this also means that two stackers that have equal trust have less impact together than individually. If one of them zaps 10k is more signal in this system than if both zap 5k. I think that’s the opposite of what we want unfortunately and sounds like a game breaker to this idea.

Curious about your thoughts on this. Maybe it incentivizes big zaps so it’s net good again? Oof, so much game theory to unpack haha

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Good point about the two stackers vs one. Much to unpack indeed.

40 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 31 Oct

Given that the sybil is designed to curb gaming, why not introduce a new zap type with a reduced fee that won't impact leaderboard standings? This would provide a win-win solution for everyone.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Good idea.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 31 Oct

How about we call it pZAP (pay zap) !? Ahhah

40 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 31 Oct

new comment instead of edit to above to make sure you see this

Why don’t you use the profile (lightning address) to zap? That’s still within SN but has no sybil fees. It will also continue to work like that after Nov 5 if it’s p2p.

Am I missing something?

142 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

That's great for the sender and receiver but then the territory and rewards pool get nothing. I am just trying to brainstorm ways that benefit all parties.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 31 Oct

Mhh, I see now. We’ll have to revisit this.

50 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

hehehehe Darth is right... about CCs

31 sats \ 5 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

It burns my tongue to say it but "DARTH WAS RIGHT"!

20 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 31 Oct

What does this have to do with CCs? 👀

20 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

everything

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 31 Oct

unsubscribed

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 31 Oct

😂

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Oct

You don't have to be upset now that Darth was right again...

61 sats \ 4 replies \ @Coinsreporter 31 Oct

I've a simple solution. We can have one more post type 'Pool' without the Sybil fee with options to declare winners and paying them there.

I don't know if this is technically possible or not.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Hmm but you would still want all pool posts to have fees just not the winning post. Maybe there should be a certain amount of non fee zaps each stacker can get a month.

61 sats \ 2 replies \ @Coinsreporter 31 Oct

I'm saying that we have a specific 'Bounty like button' which doesn't have Sybil fee. Apart from that everything should remain as normal. There can be some extra fees applied to create a pool though.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Interesting.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 31 Oct

While we create a pool with a Pool post there should be a tab or tabs below the post to zap after the pool concludes and only that should be allowed to zap by tagging the winner of winners.

61 sats \ 1 reply \ @Coinsreporter 31 Oct

Thanks for raising this. Zapping is definitely affected by this and it'll be more affected once the shift is done.

For the world T20 Cricket Pool and Olympics Pool I zapped the rewards. That was easier and better.

For the whole day if there aren't any boosts the rewards by zaps hardly reach 15k but before they used to easily climb 30k to 50k. Zapping is the soul of SN and I believe that a moderate system would be better. Also, when you zap any post or comment, you always intend to zap the OP not the territory owners.

49 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

I do think additional revenue for territory founders is helpful but it shouldn't be at the expense of overall experience and ability for the site to grow and bring in new users. Ultimately territories will become much more successful if the amount of stackers, items, zaps 10x as opposed to getting additional share of a small pool of fees.

50 sats \ 4 replies \ @realBitcoinDog 31 Oct

I thought this was Stacker News where we paid a flat tax!

Now you want a progressive tax structure, where the rich pay less!

Sir, this is not Canada!

19 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Inverse progressive tax.

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 31 Oct

Good lord, it's called a "regressive tax" not an "inverse progressive tax". Learn English you noobs.

7 sats \ 0 replies \ @realBitcoinDog 31 Oct

Ha! Stay in your ~Econ territory for that kinda talk 🤣

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @024620272f4 31 Oct

Now you want a progressive tax structure, where the rich pay less!

A progressive capitalist tax structure.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 1 Nov

Good idea! I agree.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @BTCLNAT 1 Nov

From what I understand, this Sybil fee issue is associated with avoiding gaming the platform to avoid zapping a stacker himself and having this influence the rating of the zapped stacker. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case, wouldn't it be more appropriate to remove the rating or leaderboard for stackers?

On the other hand, after November 5th with the entry into force of the Cowboy Credits, does that solve this Sybil fee issue? Since they won't be SATs

40 sats \ 1 reply \ @B_for_Bitcoin 31 Oct

Great post and constructive discussion! I think the Sybil fees are good for territory owners and avoiding scam accounts. I personally would prefer 20% fee. I think @k00b and @ek are taking notes and making their calculations.

However, I also agree that for big amounts given as a reward for various pools should be fees free because it’s a price. It should be depending on the winner to donate some of these sats or not. Sending them directly to the winner could be a solution.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Good thoughts.

40 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 31 Oct

The idea is good. You could have paid them directly!

wallet > withdraw > lightning address

147 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Yes and that adds no value to SN rewards or territories. I am trying to solve to not have to do that.

40 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 31 Oct

The fee is what adds value to rewards and territories but that’s what you’re trying to avoid. You can’t have both.

I guess this is about the space between fee and no fee?

131 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

Yes but if people don't zap or start zapping outside of SN because the fee is to high it doesn't add any value to rewards or territories.

I gave an example today. Between coins and myself we zapped over 20k sats outside of SN. Previously we would have done that on SN generating 2k plus in fees to be split between rewards and territory but instead 0 sats were generated in this instance.

30% of 0 is not better than 10% of 20k.

I am not saying what you guys have done is wrong. Just trying to come up with ideas to balance the need for territories to earn revenue and the incentive to zap freely on SN.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 31 Oct

You're doing it the right way, that's valuable!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 31 Oct

Why cant we just figure out who is who? If we do that, we can stop the assmilking and zapsturabation.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @024620272f4 31 Oct

You are in a bitcoin forum and all the day talk about how bad is the Fiat system with its high taxes and now you are talking about paying higher or lower taxes like in the Fiat system. And I wonder 💭 what kind of Bitcoiners are you guys? 😁

199 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby OP 31 Oct

We shouldn't talk about what fee structure is optimal to make SN (which should be a driver of bitcoin p2p adoption) successful?

We are less of Bitcoiners for wanting SN to be the best experience possible?

Should we be posting fiat price charts on twitter instead?