pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby 19 Nov \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
Would another solution be to randomly select one zapper each day who gets the whole days rewards?
This would incentivize creating a multitude of accounts and zapping a little from each, so perhaps there needs to be another qualification: zaps at least a certain amount, or zaps and comments.
I remember when we had the somewhat random rewards function that varied the criteria. Maybe it's that sort of model, but with a random winner function, like a lottery.
Would another solution be to randomly select one zapper each day who gets the whole days rewards?
I still remember million sat madness where the whole rewards of a month were given to just 64 stackers, including 1 million to the top.
I remember not enjoying that. My philosophy would be that rewards should feel smooth, not lumpy, and that it should be a reliable, and fairly predictable, incentive for consistent participation.
reply
MSM wasn't pleasant, I agree. And probably i agree with you that rewards ought to be aimed at being predictable. Yet I wonder if there isn't a short enough time frame, and a small enough reward sum, that makes the random winner mode feel more like fun and less like dreadfulness.
reply
reply
That difference makes sense.
The truly random option you describe in another comment (#1286158) probably makes more sense. But the dopamine lover in me thinks it would be pretty awesome to take home the whole pot.
I suppose it would be possible that someone figures out an optimal zapping strategy that would lead to a reliable gain of sats (thereby defeating the purpose of Sybil fees).
This could happen with a reward spread out over some random segment as well, but not for a single big winner.
reply