I think it is natural for Relays and Users to have an antagonistic relationship. Similar in to Bitcoin, the game theory should be embraced.
Relays have to monetize user data? Okay, users start encrypting their data.
Users encrypt their data? Okay, relays charge money to post encrypted data.
i agree it's natural that every client-service relationship contains an element of the juxtaposed objectives, but they must be balanced by the low-time preference belief in the good of long-term sustainable symbiotic relationships or else we're kinda doomed
so i think the relays / businesses that will win are those that offer better service and establish long-term credibility even at the expense of short-term gain that might have been possible through adversarial pursuits
Sure, but any short term good will has to also be in the hopes of long term bigger profit.
Similar to bitcoin, anything that relies on good will alone is not sustainable. It’s also why I find the idea of zaps unhelpful.
It’s like thinking that adding a mural in the ghetto is going to revitalize their economy. Economies can’t run on good vibes!
Not actually advocating good-will, just a kind of symbiosis in the form of low-time preference with common hope of good long term outcomes.
Any short term 'good will' would actually just be more like bets on longer term good outcomes.
It's the inverse of what we see in places with low hope (low confidence in the future), where hit-and-run is a better bet than stay-and-grow.
Re: zaps - i think of them as baby steps towards the idea of paying-for-value, they're not a silver bullet, but they hopefully lay the experiential foundation for #value4value commerce.
