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.

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