pull down to refresh

It is possible, but if people value CCs less it makes zaps less sybil resistant.
Increasing CCs utility would make people value CCs more, not less.
It's not like CCs would become easier to earn because you made them easier to spend.
reply
I believe this would increase user satisfaction. If it were determined that the zaps became less sybil resistant, we could always increase the Sybil fee.
reply
10 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 16 Jan
I don't think the users that hate cowboy credits enough to rage quit will be satisfied by anything short of removing them entirely. I know that because every time they get or send cowboy credits, which they are SO angry about, the only alternative is receiving an error that they claim they'd be happy to see. No rational person would prefer that. They want us to do something impossible, because WE pay the cost for us trying to do something impossible. It'd turn ten unhappy stackers into all stackers being unhappy.
I'd rather spend my time serving the stackers that have some grace than placating entitled internet sociopaths. I learned a long time ago to not negotiate with product terrorists. We will make cowboy credits less common and faster to decay, but we have a lot of work to do in addition to that. The priority will never be the people raging about the existence of CCs inarticulately.

I realize you just meant it as product suggestion and to queue it, but I had a rant chambered and this seemed like a good place to discharge it. Thanks for the suggestion! I believe @_random proposed a couple days ago, after @ek originally did a few months ago.
reply
It was only an idea. You're in charge!
reply
18 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 17 Jan
I know it was only an idea. I edited it to indicate that I knew. Sorry for my rant.
reply
I had no idea that someone else had already brought that up! You are excused.
reply
Weird. I didnt get a note when @k00b tagged me. Maybe because it was in an edit?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 17 Jan
He wrote @_random not @random_
reply