reply on: Stacker Saloon \ stacker news

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 18 replies \ @ek 4 Jan \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon

Everyone in the top 10, except for me, spent more than they will receive in rewards:

Whereas you spent only 266 sats and will receive over 1k in rewards:

20 sats \ 12 replies \ @IamSINGLE 4 Jan

I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the huge difference between No. 1 to 4 and 5.

What's the use of rewards if you need to spend them all before you earn?

BTW, I've not zapped more today because blink is taking 10 sats as minimum fees. I already mentioned it.

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @ek 4 Jan

Same explanation. 1-4 spent a lot more.

If you're not referring to your own rewards, I would suggest avoiding snarky comments like #836081.

24 sats \ 10 replies \ @IamSINGLE 4 Jan

So, rewards are given for spending more?

Why not @Undisciplined at the top when he has clearly outspent everyone else.

That wasn't snarky but sarcastic. He's at the top so he's the king.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Jan

Most of my spending was not rewards eligible. I was paying my rent for the year.

There are reasons why it wouldn't just be who zapped the most, though. You should read the FAQ and guide at the bottom of the page, if you want to know all the considerations that go into rewards.

Alternatively, you can just zap bigly and not worry about it.

52 sats \ 8 replies \ @IamSINGLE 4 Jan

Thanks for the information. I sure read it. I just don't like the 'power law' thing here. Top 4 are rewarded much more than the rest and I raised my voice.

If rewards are for spending more (so much more that you first gave to outspend the rewards, you're projected to get). Then the rewards projected earlier in day go on becoming less for everyone from rank 4. This is empirical.

This clearly resembles to shopping schemes where you spend more to get rewarded.

I understand that zapping needs to be encouraged. But, how would it be encouraged when first you need to spend more. You can see that on the leaderboard and I'm sure you've realised it.

Another thing, I'm concerned all in good faith. But there are so many haters here who clearly are on a mission to slag me off only to prove that they are correct. Look how they are running down against me all the time and what they are upto?

And they say they are honest!!

In fact I got my reply in the morning (my time) today. I was on rank 15 at a time when there aren't so many stackers around but I was slacked off to rank 30.

All I would say "Thank you SN."

But it wasn't just about me. If there's a way, I'd opt out of the rewards.

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Jan

There's not really any way to talk about rewards without a bunch of dumb dickheads assuming you're whining about not getting more.

I may be mistaken, but the power law distribution that k00b mentioned isn't a rule. It's just his expectation, based on how people behave. If the top ten stackers all zapped, posted, and commented similarly for a day, then they'd likely have pretty similar rewards.

35 sats \ 5 replies \ @IamSINGLE 4 Jan

If that's the case, I don't have any objection. The power law is in fact a rule and if that's k00b's expectation, he must have pointed it right after I commented it. #836081

But that's not the case. Ek came and made it look like I was personally hurt with the new method of rewards.

When I wrote this #836081 , I wrote it as a witty remark with sarcasm.

But now after processing my head into it for all day, I've come to a conclusion: Suppose when SN grows too much, it'll be like an empire where all those who sits with high value will channel the information. They would likely listen what they want, from whom they want, when they want. It's already happening with the content what kings and ministers (the top valued) don't like. They'll zap any content from any of them, be it of high value or not, (seen that 777 sats zap above in the image). This is already going on. See top posts for any day, you'll find "Who zaps" is more important than "how many zap". A post with a lot less zapped and zapped by someone stronger tops a post which is zapped substantially more and by many more stackers.

This is what power law means and I'm against it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

55 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Jan

There's a lot in what you said. One element that people often overlook is that our posts and comments are not isolated. It wouldn't make sense to treat them as though they were.

Through our repeated interactions with each other reputations and relationships develop. There's no mystery in why that translates into zaps and it isn't a problem either. There are people I zap more, because I'm glad they choose to regularly make content here and behave in a way that brings me value. They aren't all OG stackers either.

This is all part of the proof of work paradigm. It isn't that each entry stands on its own. The body of work is cumulative.

view replies