Are you sure about that?
I'm sure the political donations system started out as innocent also!
Discussion
This is not a democracy.
OK. So open to the highest bidder then?
Sure. It doesn't guarantee that we will follow it, but we will definitely take a look.
But more sats helps?
Slippery slope.
I understand your position but morality usually shifts over time. Meritocracy is important IMO.
Are you thinking of it as an incentive mechanism to bring in cash for devs? I guess that reward is probably low for amount of work
I don't know what you mean by meritocracy. Those involved in the project will already what they want to do. So, any merit is already been accounted for and by themselves. The only other merit is to those that donate to the project and deserve to be at least listened to.
I'm meaning that ideas should win. Not sats.
Understand your position. As you said you will do as you see fit also.
It doesn't work. There are so many ideas on what we should do (every user has a few) that it is impossible to even gather them all. I try my best, but I don't see most of the Amethyst-related discussion out there.
What slippery slope are you referring to? What is the outcome that you're afraid of?
To me, functionally this doesn't sound any different from any of the other feature bounties that exist. would you disagree or do you think they're all bad? To me it just seems like it's creating a market that allows for users to get features they value, and for devs to get paid, which both seem like good things.
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.
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.