Just hoping that the best idea wins, not the biggest wallet.

So if a donor gives a few sats and the idea is good, the idea would be judged on its merits. OK.

If a donor gives a lot of sats or repeatedly gives sats but the idea is not so good what happens? Sats are important to fund the team right? They need to eat too. I'm.not saying its gonna be the main case. But edges cases start as just that, edge cases.

Fully aware if users don't like the system they can try another client. Not debating that. Just saying that is the slippery slope I see.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I see your point. I guess I'm just not too worried about it since: as you pointed out there are other clients, technical considerations aside, unless zappers are malicious, I don't know that there's any reason to assume that donors' ideas are going to be worse than someone who's specialty is coding (as someone who does creative technical work, I cringe in fear every time I boss asks me to "just make something that users will like"), and it seems like, unless a whale of a donor functionally wants to buy a client, we'll still end up with the wisdom of the crowds giving us a great result.

And perhaps more coldly, while I too want great clients, client devs aren't running charities, no one owes us anything, and it'd be wrong of us to expect them to put our best interest ahead of their own.

When zaps are used to indicate interest in a feature I think ita fair to reduce the vote share of additonal sats from the same pubkey using an exponential curve.

Its different if they are used as a financial incentive to undertake the work.