This may be an unpopular opinion but I think zaps should be off by default and icon hidden on all notes unless user enables zaps (to self and to others) in settings.
Discussion
Pertaining to social clients only.
ain’t it already like that, kinda? it only shows if you enable it by adding a LN address, no?
No. New users see zaps on at least a few clients at without touching anything.
interesting how memory is tricky, I could swear otherwise
seeing zaps is just seeing notes, one doesn’t enable to send zaps, only to receive… but when looking at a test account that hasn’t enabled receiving, snort, coracle, damus, and iris all don’t show a zap button on this account until receive has been enabled.
I think your opinion is trying to express something different than this, I could but, I’ll refrain from speculating on what.
ye, that’s what I thought so
Interesting, I’ll need to test again. Could have sworn they were on by default on notes (not yours but others).
here is a pubkey that I can confirm never had an ln addy, should only show it for accounts that do. #[4]
That’s precisely what I’m talking about though 😆
I remember a video of Ariana grande who was shocked when testing insta live and people could send money, but I’m not sure she needs to have the ability to receive to want the ability to send, which is what is so preferable to me about how zaps is implemented in contrast to the built in wallet in something like fountain fm, I can’t just get a invoice from a podcast, I need to fund and agree to earn from listing to be able to participate in sending. Maybe I’m wrong in assuming it’s not as simple as saying, you need a bio to see bios.
Good point! (Though there are a minority of clients that integrate address setup during onboarding like Current on iOS)
Why?
My view is the opposite, although certain clients will surely impliment this approach. I belive the "like" should be replace or at least fuse with sats as one.
What is the motivation/intention of that?
It seems to me it’s already hard enough changing the mindset behind and healing our approach to “social media” and hiding zaps is only going to further relegate it to the shadows.
What makes you think adding micro transactions (zaps) to social media will fix it?
The problem is likely multifaceted but I’m intrigued with the observation that “likes” and comments are infinitely reproducible whereas zaps are inherently limited. An AI bot could leave 100 million unique likes and comments at zero cost yet couldn’t afford to give 100 million one-sat zaps
Likes are democratic whereas zaps a plutocratic. While a bot can like many posts, it can only give one like on a particular note. On the other hand I've seen just in my feed multiple people zap a single post the equivalent of 1 sat and another where 1 user zapped 50k sats ($14.01 USD at the time). This is a reversal of what we would have considered more successful previously with 3 likes to 1 becoming 3 sats to 50k.
It would be difficult to argue that bigger zappers aren't going to have an outsized impact on what others will post, particularly when all of this is publicly available and people can tune their posting to what is most likely to get them the biggest zaps. Perhaps this is the idea, but I'm sure you can imagine why people who want open, honest conversations would be concerned that this would affect the outcome of those conversations.
You bring up some interesting points. Sure one human can give one like but one person controlling 1,000 bots can give a 1,000 likes.
Zaps are not fake-able. If someone sends 50k sats then they are sending a clear signal that the content is really good because they cannot get their sats back.
I certainly don’t want to have it excluding genuine participation but I’m concerned about the effects of “cheap talk” especially given that the internet has everything asymptotically approaching infinite and instant
I would be interested in any non-monetary “proof of work” solutions that could maybe be more equitable but real costs seem inherent to proof of work
Zaps are not falsifiable but they are transferrable. So lets use your bot farm in this circumstance. You transfer 50k sats from bot a to bot b for "virtually no transaction fee" (obviously you will be burning some amount) and you can continue to farm this around, adding to it as need be to increase visibility and make an opinion seem high value.
This could be used politically showing opinions praising one political party and/ or demonising the other having big sats attached to them to implicitly suggest that if you too hold those opinions sats will be coming your way.
If you're worried about bot farms giving 1000's of likes I don't think this problem currently exists here. Some spam filtering has already been implemented on relays but removing likes isn't going to remove spam comments which are a much bigger issue. Focussing on curating your follows as well as individually blocking people you feel aren't adding to your conversations will always be the best way to remove cheap talk from your feed.
That’s a good point. I’ll have to think on it more I guess
The guy that makes Amethyst made a poll feature that lets you vote with zaps, which is a terrible idea.
But I mean, zaps are practically worthless so if some political group wants to push a certain post or narrative, it’ll cost them very little to do so anyway. Making “likes” cost a fraction of a cent isn’t going to change anything.
And I suppose it’s true that content will shift towards what is getting zapped. I would say this is also true for likes as people want the social validation but probably even stronger with zaps. But isn’t that what makes free markets work so well? People naturally respond to incentives. If someone values something enough to pay for it, then it is a good exchange between both parties.
I’ll write in more detail when I get a chance.
I enjoy your long form content very much and look forward to reading why you want to disable zaps unless a user opts in. Initially upon reading the short form take I dislike the idea because for me personally zaps are one of my favorite things about Nostr but I’m also eager to hear a perspective that could help me expand on my current understanding of the value zaps bring.
Having it as a option whould only lead to confusion what it does
So if i turn it on i get zapped ?
What you mean i need a waller i turned it on
Regardless where it people gonna see it anyway
Is it because it’s “too much too soon” for new users?
Wonder if a setup wizard opting in to it is the way to go. If you have no idea what it is you can just ignore it and not see it.
I guess if you don't like getting #zap s then you could always remove your LNURL?
I turned on #onlyzaps and it makes me realise which content I genuinely value. And I send zaps >10-20 times a day (if not more)
I think there are plenty of social interaction platforms that don't have Zaps, and this is what makes zapping and Nostr so different and exciting (for me) ⚡️🫶
Yes you are right, it is unpopular 😂😂
But I can understand your point. We should not put nostr in one box.
?cid=2154d3d78wmfamcx4713hqt793jixifilcsbl82lgopcdo2z&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
I don't mind having both options, since you have to set it up before it affects you, but I seriously question the concept that monetizing every interaction on social media is going to improve or heal anything.
Unpopular opinion: I think you should mute yourself by default and only unmute when people request you to in case by case basis
I think having it as visible metric would impact users differently - and hence tapping on the gig economy, would make great use cases.
I was observant of my own reaction when Martti added currency convertors. Wrote them here (sorry, long)
note1m4t3vfevqahzlln4flp8389jwkqrpceuluzqgp89rzcrlg5cww7sps0md5
Zaps are the new likes, get used to it.
I agree. It’s good practice to make features opt in instead of opt out. If any other app made something be opt out by default, a lot of you would lose your minds. It’s a 2 sided coin
Agree 👍🏻
🤥