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