Fair pushback. This isn’t about solving wealth inequality. It’s narrower than that.
Nostr explicitly operates on value for value. No ads. No corporate subsidies. If you consume value and don’t reciprocate, you’re violating the basic social contract of why this protocol exists.
The question is simple…do we actually believe in value for value, or are we just here for censorship resistance while hoping someone else funds the creators we benefit from?
Yes … it would have to be narrower since micropayments aren’t all connected across platforms …
Your comment is conflating a bunch of ideas …
1. Nostr operates as an app funded by OpenSats donations (to pay coders and etc.)
2. Users of the app are choosing a social media that is an alternative to centralized, data-selling, algorithm ones.
The types of users of social media ….
1. very ambitious people who want to make money via a skill
2. people who are okay with having a more typical job and using social media for fun - sometimes this means only browsing, or some commenting, sometimes this means posting.
so, you’re just referring to the first type of social media user. I don’t really know about that. I’m more of the second type. In that case, I find zaps distracting.
>> while hoping someone else funds the creators we benefit from?<<
I think it’s about … yeah people should be “funded”, and everyone could potentially be a creator.
Mostly everyone has hobbies, but often, having a 9 to 5 job will quickly crowd out those hobbies.
