Would you be more or less likely to visit a website and "read the article" if it was paywalled by traditional means or by sats?
Discussion
Sats has far less friction than going through the hassle of KYCd credit card entry.
That being said we are deep in a minority.
One day sats will built in to every browser though and that will be different.
True true :)
Truth.
For a normie, sats means additional work up front, even if its less going forward.
Hopefully fiat's escalating KYC will annoy more people into getting over the entry curve.
I'm considering to implement a #zapatcha alternative to capatchas on a site of mine. To let users choose to play a boooring minigame or #zap!
In the future I am not sure what the norm will be.
I worry that sats to view pages could make the problem of clickbait and click farming worse and more profitable.
I like the idea of paying to unlock a page to prove you are a person but then at the end of the article having an option to return your sats if you did not find the page valuable
Essentially a money back guarantee.
A #zapatcha can be of a much less sat ammount than a pay peer view and should be.
They just have to be friction enough to not make it worth the effort for hackers / attackers.
In contrast I sometimes get captchas that are slow and take minutes to get passed. That time is never returned to me, sadly. So sometimes I just leave the site annoyed 😜
True.
A different use case and I totally agree aoit the annoyance.
And they keep getting weirder and weirder.
It started with traffic lights and now it's clicking on psychedelic AI animals.
I recently tried to help someone buy a hardware wallet online.
After putting in all his details the card transaction was rejected.
We tried again and this time the bank sent a 2FA code to him. We entered the 2FA code and the bank froze his card 😂
I explained how much easier a lightning transaction would be.
Great orange pill moment.
lol