Unfortunately, the nature of social networks tends to create a kind of gravitational pull for people to engage most eagerly on accounts that have the most followers. If you engage smartly on a note posted by a popular account, rather than just post on your own account, your reach can be hugely magnified. Same goes for posting a thoughtful response to an account with low followers - instead you save your valuable reply for a similar note posted by a popular account.

But what if there were some way to incentivize a decentralizing engagement pattern to counter this naturally centralizing one? What if people were somehow rewarded for engaging with under-discovered small accounts that have the potential to become popular accounts?

Possible solutions?

Maybe the simple social dynamics of having more quality interactions with small accounts is the only solution that's possible or necessary here. But maybe there are creative incentives that can be designed in at the client or protocol level.

For example. What if notes were "collected" by the highest zapper. This would incentivize you to go out and find cool notes from under-discovered accounts and scoop up cool collectibles at bargain prices.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

That certainly is the nature of legacy social networks. Reply posting off large accounts on Twitter increasingly became one of the only ways for smaller accounts to hope to get any kind of engagement, say nothing of a meaningful conversation.

The flexibility for users to easily and openly toggle/filter feeds across clients is important. As long as most clients keep the control in user’s hands, I feel very optimistic. And why wouldn’t they? The bitcoin diaspora will instinctively migrate to platforms that offer greater control and freedom to the individual user.

This is not a centralizing pattern, because there are different drivers for attention and engagement.

Some want "the sure thing" (i.e. proven content, that others liked or engaged with). Enterntainment, news, etc.

But others want "new and interesting takes" (i.e. from undiscovered accounts with very good points). They're usually discovered when they give an insightful reply. They also have typically very few followers. Their follows are of a similar kind, so if you wnt to follow more "new and interestin takes", such "low profile' accounts are loosely inter-connected. That's why on Bitcoin Tiwtter, some of the best takes come from frog and cat profiles.

So IMO there are competing drivers that spread engagement out across a network.

Besides, once an account gets big, their voice and style changes. They have more to lose, so they tend to cater to their audience. They lose their edge, which part of their audience now switching to contenders in the space.

Excellent points. Agree.