pull down to refresh

1230 sats \ 27 comments \ @ek 27 Jan meta

Sat Standard Report 001

To inject some data into the discussion around the credits, we have plans to include the following in analytics but I thought it would be fun to share the raw data since Jan 3 as a post already.

I named the last column sat standard, since it is the ratio of sats to credits on the items. It basically means, for every 100 sats you see on an item that was created after Jan 3, 57 are real sats and 43 are credits since we sum them in the feed (but you can see the breakdown if you click on ... > details).

I expect this number to go up over time as we make it easier to attach a wallet, wallets make it easier to get attached, and the lighting network itself improves.

total stats since Jan 3

items: 31,020
sats: 1,543,393
credits: 1,183,454
sat standard: 0.57

daily stats since Jan 3

day	items	sats	credits	sat standard
January 26, 2025	1,012	40,813	25,247	0.618
January 25, 2025	1,188	58,496	30,963	0.650
January 24, 2025	1,016	59,246	34,444	0.632
January 23, 2025	1,103	65,412	62,276	0.512
January 22, 2025	1,314	78,405	39,608	0.664
January 21, 2025	1,450	53,947	59,172	0.477
January 20, 2025	1,340	49,222	54,347	0.475
January 19, 2025	1,113	52,056	31,001	0.627
January 18, 2025	1,151	47,123	34,276	0.580
January 17, 2025	1,260	66,885	83,216	0.450
January 16, 2025	1,194	87,408	40,551	0.683
January 15, 2025	1,256	71,956	54,991	0.567
January 14, 2025	1,336	69,697	49,099	0.587
January 13, 2025	1,225	81,974	37,990	0.680
January 12, 2025	1,112	43,375	36,148	0.550
January 11, 2025	1,220	48,482	28,132	0.633
January 10, 2025	1,475	67,332	100,721	0.401
January 9, 2025	1,452	80,650	56,859	0.587
January 8, 2025	1,374	96,965	39,241	0.712
January 7, 2025	1,412	57,499	49,666	0.537
January 6, 2025	1,448	64,127	60,083	0.520
January 5, 2025	1,299	45,972	45,587	0.502
January 4, 2025	1,419	48,063	87,695	0.354
January 3, 2025	1,509	101,857	39,023	0.723

view all related items

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 27 Jan

I hadn't considered until now that this could be considered kind of a summary statistic of the state of Lightning in general.

I suppose at some point the confounds could overwhelm the information, e.g., if the Trump admin became so non-threatening wrt the whole "money transmitter" thing that SN ditched CCs entirely and went back to the old way, the takeover of sats would be a step back and not forward. But barring that, highly informative!

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark 27 Jan

It's actually really interesting to see the daily breakdown. It's crazy that some days there has been a higher CC to sat ratio.

9 sats \ 1 reply \ @supratic 27 Jan

This is a unique metric only SN can showcase. Well done! Does this then set the price for buying/selling CCs?

1cc = 0.57sats

and

1sat = 1.75ccs

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Catcher 27 Jan

Interesting, as I understand you can pay territory fees in CC, so territories got 40% cheaper?=)

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @cryotosensei 27 Jan

It will be like comparing apples with oranges, but how is the data for Dec 2024 like? Did the introduction of CCs increase the amount of interactions on this site?

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 27 Jan

Definitely wanna know those figures.

The item count has a noticeable slowdown but not sure about comments/zaps/engagement

11 sats \ 8 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 27 Jan

Good idea. Isn't it possible to know how many CCs are in circulation?

42 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek OP 27 Jan

It is. There are currently ~1m credits sitting in user balances but I am not sure how much that says. I think it's more relevant how much sats vs credits are received per item. 👀

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 27 Jan

How variable is that number?

I understand that the CCs in principle decay very fast (usage comes with fee to territory owners and rewards and those payments are translated into real sats). But if the velocity of the average CC isn't that high, it changes the dynamic a little

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 27 Jan

I don't think this total excludes the CCs that @sn holds which is >200k.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 27 Jan

just for the sake of transparency!

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 27 Jan

I don't disagree. But it's kind of weird request to hear when no one asked how many sats we had in custody before the change.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 27 Jan

This is a vastly different situation. Unlike CCs, the sats SN held in custody were transferable at any time and not minted by the SN. Furthermore, the SN has the unilateral ability to mint CCs without any oversight. I'm not suggesting SN intend to do this, but it's a key difference.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 27 Jan

We “minted” custodial sats from noncustodial ones. We could’ve “minted” more than we received. We could’ve fractionally reserved them.

The ONLY difference is CCs cannot be withdrawn. I can’t tell why that’d make us more likely to misbehave but that’s okay. I just found it “weird” that this is suddenly a concern.

154 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 27 Jan

It's not primarily a concern, but increased transparency benefits stackers and improves security. If someone were to exploit a bug and mint CCs, public data would enable greater community oversight and faster detection.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Jan

Shouldn't you be including territory fees?

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 27 Jan

Why? They go to us, it doesn't matter for p2p zaps which is how ccs impact the experience of stackers.

163 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Jan

It seems to me like you should be covering how often sats are used, when cowboy credits are an alternative.

Territory owners are stackers too and I've seen a few talk about trying to accumulate CC's for the purpose of paying their rent.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @realBitcoinDog 27 Jan

Love the data thanks!

The Sat standard

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 27 Jan

Interesting! I wonder why we require it when all CCs are ultimately converted into Sats?

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Jan

Is a start. Still needed some other steps:

remove leaderboard and daily rewards. It doesn't make sense to zap posts with CCs and get rewards in sats.
separate upvotes (CCs) from zaps (sats).

Then you will have a real image of what is going on with SN and a real v4v system

9 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek OP 27 Jan

remove leaderboard and daily rewards. It doesn't make sense to zap posts with CCs and get rewards in sats.

We can remove the leaderboard but not the rewards. I don't believe that a system can be sustainable if it's only based on tips (#770966).

separate upvotes (CCs) from zaps (sats).

SN did separate upvotes from sats when it started and it was bad

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Jan

IMHO, SN should became the new BitcoinTalk forum, not the reminiscences of r/Bitcoin reddit.

Or even better a combination of BitcoinTalk forum + BitcoinStackExchange Q&A...

All the rest is just noise.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Jan

The whole thing of "separating sats from CCs" is flawed.

I just did a test. I have in my SN account 95 CCs and a bunch of thousand of sats. I zapped 100 to a post and as designed, it was taking sats from the sats balance, not the CCs. But when I clicked on the post details it shows that received... CCs from me and not sats. THIS IS A BUG ! it should send sats not CCs.

9 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 27 Jan

it is not a bug, read #841565

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Jan

Then is wrong and misleading. I should be able to zap those sats until depletion not converting them into CCs.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 27 Jan

The word "sustainable" here is doing funny things!