pull down to refresh
. In practice, you are almost right, except that the decision to profit off immorality is not something that correlates with unprofitability per se
Unless a territory has banning powers downzaping the ill-gotten gains can only do so much especially if the scammer has a bigger bag of sats than you.
Expecting people to be altruistic for the greater good of SN is not a good incentive for survival.
Realistically, I agree with you.
But isn't it a shame that not accepting money from scammers is narrated as altruism in a little corner of the internet where more than half the people subscribe to alignment with do-no-evil spiritual and religious movements? It is good to find out again how shallow that too has become in modern society, even in a place full of insane people.
It means: opti is delusional, as hell will freeze over before a stacker will unstack their ill gotten gainz.
I don't disagree with the bottom line, at all. I'm not advocating for any coercion or even shame.
What I do advocate against though is to think that profitability - of which you say there is none - stands in the way of taking pay from a scam. In practice, you are almost right, except that the decision to profit off immorality is not something that correlates with unprofitability per se, I'm quite sure that the opposite is true: the upholding of morals may lead to reduced profitability.
And from that perspective, a well kept territory in the red may be better than a poorly kept territory in the black; after all, the red/black only matters to the territory owner, whereas the quality of the territory matters to a whole lot more people.
Therefore I said that there's a suggestion to enshittify, if the profit of the territory owner has a dependency on scams.