Primal opted for doxxing users and no wallet choice in exchange for post-specific Zaps.

Damus opted for wallet choice in exchange for Zapping users rather than posts.

Both on iOS. Subject to the same Apple policies. This is why I see it as less of a messenger issue, and more of a design decision that has trade-offs that could be seen as antithetical to monetary freedom.

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 you’re a smart guy. Am I wrong that this was a design decision and that those trade-offs were known in advance?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

As far as I know this has nothing to do with iOS. It's because you're registered custodian therefore you have to be licensed as a money transmitter and do all kinds of retarded things like KYC even though Bitcoin is supposedly not money.

I’ve been told that Strike’s solution was required rather than a NWC option for the reason you specified…

but that this requirement was triggered due to Primal’s choice: linking the Zap with the Note itself—classified as an in-app purchase (rather than a donation)—so this triggers the Money Services Business rules you mentioned, on iOS. Damus got around this by not linking the post to the Zap (so the transfer is a donation rather than a purchase).

If that’s true. I believe Primal should do what Damus did, because of the privacy tradeoff. That’s my main point.

Maybe Primal is not changing this because Note Zapping:

1. metrics have utility

2. enable future functionality (maybe future Zap-to-unlock content).

3. it’s too cumbersome to change

Or maybe they have an exclusivity with Strike. idk, the reason doesn’t really matter.

I just don’t want to see a bunch of new users get doxxed when they don’t have to. I actually like Strike and Primal, this isn’t coming from a bad place.