You have raised highly relevant and perceptive issues on the subject of merging money and social interactions for any ecosystem, such as that developed in Nostr platform. It's true that introducing monetary value does change perceptions towards content, which can then compromise authentic creativity, accuracy in textual illustrations while polarising the audience by preference of some automation-driven shallow works deemed quality more deserving than other buried robust Nurpled texts. Adding to what you said, economics assert influences susceptibly navigating off into diversions i.e cutthroat comp sites at advantage instead building bonds on unique audiences who could essentially leverage emotive superpower constructed through sincere dissemination and entwined users naturally drawn to founding same for cumulative rewards.

Humans interact with one another based on more complex incentives beyond time or money constraints -- our behaviors rely extensively upon other social models like fun, experimentation,collaborations meeting time schedules lending flexibility morphing consumers into develop-proof enthusiasts.

In all humility in offering explanations through; itis not often observable that strangers upon uniting in a collection driven initially by convenience opening futures strengthening links created leveraging tax utility anonymity offered reflect good but unfortunately t from your conjecture above right noticing though challenges take place after "Community Bonds Begins."

My take is there certainly need to ardently reign true motives behind Community Social-centric platforms even when goals are diversely blended involving variable inclusion policies such as monetization without community values being overrun hence allowing faithful cherished sub-communities devoid compromised advice ideally tying psychologically distinct motivation patterns to up sustainable adoption over

this is a very interesting point of view 👀

There is somewhat an idea that zaps function outside of the social media dynamics of other sites and likes. But it mostly doesn't seem to imo

Well formulated! I share your observations and concerns, but don’t really have much to add. I see how zaps can lead to erosion of trust and break even strong friendships.🐶🐾🫂🫡

ln solves for the tiny little micropayments that prohibit twitter sharing their profits with the creator. There aren’t profits now, but I’m happy we’ve put into place a solution for that before hand, rather than asking for someone to build something to solve for that long after.

One way is tokenization https://asats.io/anonsats/docs or https://github.com/nbd-wtf/soma, (not sure how they work) not everything has to be a market you are right nostr:nevent1qqs0gmrj2xg5880vze0s0lnt7g7fw6yzej48t0qnr3ccuzeval55resppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7fds7cm

Fren,

You've said out loud much of what I have felt, and said in other words as well. You've said it more clearly than I have, so I'm going to bookmark this!

There was a campaign a while ago to eliminate likes, which I found objectionable. If anything, we need a wider range of expression, not narrower!

Having said all that, I see you're also getting other significant responses...

Steemit was good until the sellout; I migrated to Hive with the rest of the community, and still publish there, but I'm very happy for nostr's decentralization and integration with bitcoin.🙏💜😁😆

#

>For example, content may become tailored towards getting zaps, drowning out other types of interactions and possibly eroding trust and cooperation between people.

This seems selfcontradictory.

Obviously, interactions that errode trust won't get zapped. That sounds like a person that ultimately gets blocked.

I think that stress testing the system was valuable. Relays & WoS have become more resilient. 😆💪

I think that people also have to think about what they want to see more of. What do they value?

As I thought more on & played with Value for Value, I changed how I zapped.

At the end of the day I don't need anyone's permission.

Zapathons are done for me.

I agree with your observation, but I think social is far more utilitarian if money is involved. I suspect It will create an avenue for value creation we can’t even fully comprehend at this point.

Does it manipulate our psychology and the nature of our content? Ofcourse. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I don’t know. What I do know is, I don’t have #onlyzaps on and I prefer it that way. But I really do like zapping when I find value.

Very well written and thought provoking article though 💜

Great intersection to explore: social & money. I wonder how sound money vs. fiat currency affects dynamics.

Where on a sound money standard, people will certainly post for zaps, however the audience, assuming they have a low time preference, will not reward art or posts unless there’s actual proof of work behind it. AI- generated art may be perceived as having less PoW behind it, and perhaps more fiat. (Not judging, not saying AI is fiat.)

Interesting, I think zaps will decline in use for general social interaction. I think I can already see that apart from attempts to make only zaps happen. Zaps will allow nostr to become a bit of a town square with zaps replacing coins you might have given a begger or busker prepaid for goods and services, but hanging with friends won't typically involve monetary exchange.

I wonder if the ability to zap will improve the honesty of influencers or media. Currently media outlets get paid in aggregate and only have to produce enough good content to get people to buy a subscription. The rest they can make up with content that others pay to promote. The ability to pay for each piece of content could change their incentive structure.

If you want to see what monetizing likes does to a community, check out r/cryptocurrency in 2021.

Ultimately, what is grifting if it’s not inauthenticity in order to earn money? That’s what monetizing likes incentivises.

Just my opinion, but yeh, not a fan.

It seems to me that ❤️ is worthless than a ⚡. Nothing says, I don't give a damn/satoshi like giving a ❤️.

A Satoshi is more valuable than the heart as a gesture.

Zaps = your time = your energy. You exchange this with friends and family all the time.

No need to overcomplicate it.

«Likes» are also a currency.

Any human social activity that generates some kind of reward to the creator will automatically generate 3 types of emotion:

1 Envy, “some notes generate more #zap than mine. “

2 Admiration, “I love some notes and I like it or #zap”

3 Inaction, “what the note says I don’t care, I’m just here to entertain myself and have fun”

So the psychological spectrum that can cause the reward can be varied in millions of people, but the admirable thing about this experiment is that people can decide what to do and how to feel about it, not a CEO or an algorithm.

Excited to see how everything progresses in the future.🤞🏻

Thank you for that!! Not sure how I feel about zapping from moment to moment. It really is a matter of perspective, and too much focus on the money aspect can be a bad thing.

Do I just 🤙 or ⚡️ a note like this? Is doing so bad etiquette and spammy? I’m probably going to do both because I would rather err on the side of how I feel about the content. Does that make it a competition? Yes, I’d say for many, yes. It may also make some uncomfortable on the receiving side.

I don’t know if you make it up to the poster whether something can be zapped, or quite possibly privately vs. publicly zapped. Or provide that level of customization from both sides. I’m sure that adds complexity and my brain melts trying to think of the justifications and scenarios.

I feel strongly about few things:

1) Adding value exchange absolutely works and is imperative in some form.

2) We should all try to be flexible because what sounds great in one scenario may not work in another.

3) That optionality is just as important. Both opting-in & out. Slow moves and find consensus.

This isn’t like agreeing on the next block, and we are not all nodes running the same software.

Well said.

While I love the community spirit of zapping, if this platform keeps growing, imagine how much worse engagement farming will be when it directly leads to payment...

I am a huge proponent of this “experiment.” I look at it this way: it's about _voluntarily_ providing or reciprocating value, in content or sats.

In my humble opinion, this will ultimately bring the best out of each of us, individually, and as a collective.

Money is a technology of trust; a common acknowledgement to enable interactions and cooperation between people who don’t know (trust) each other.

So I see zaps eventually representing a measure of how much value a note brings to the “marketplace.” Sure “MAGA hats” might generate some zaps but they’re easy to create (marginal cost very low) and the echo chamber noise will drown their productivity.

The zaps eventually find the “Apple” technology breakthroughs where the concepts, tones, and timing of the notes transcend echo chambers and unlock value for the masses. Signal over the noise.

It might take a little while for this market to develop and mature but I’m confident that is where the zap market eventually goes!

It is indeed an interesting experiment to mix money with social, and as you've pointed out, there are several potential implications and challenges.

Introducing money into social interactions might indeed change the way people interact with each other, as well as the type of content produced. A primary concern is that users may prioritize earning money over genuine interactions and content sharing. People might feel compelled to create content that they believe will yield more financial rewards rather than expressing their true thoughts and ideas. This could lead to a less authentic online experience.

Moreover, the introduction of money could exacerbate existing social comparisons and envy. While comparisons are common in social media environments, the addition of a monetary aspect could heighten these feelings and potentially lead to negative consequences for mental health and well-being.

Misalignment of goals is another issue that could arise, as you mentioned with the example of Steemit. Users might focus more on earning money than on creating and sharing valuable content. The risk is that the quality of content might decline, leading to a less engaging and meaningful platform.

Despite these potential drawbacks, there might be some benefits to introducing money into social interactions. For instance, content creators could be financially rewarded for their work, which might incentivize higher-quality content. Additionally, integrating money into social media could lead to new and innovative ways for users to support their favorite creators and causes.

To better understand the psychology of money in social interactions, it might be helpful to look at research on the effects of financial incentives on motivation and behavior. Studies have shown that financial incentives can sometimes have a positive impact on performance, but they can also lead to a decrease in intrinsic motivation and even hinder creativity. As with many things, the effects of money in social interactions will likely depend on the specific context and the way it is implemented.

In conclusion, the intersection of money and social interactions is a complex and fascinating area to explore. While there are potential downsides to consider, there might also be opportunities for growth and innovation. Careful consideration of the psychological implications and a commitment to learning from the successes and failures of similar experiments will be crucial in ensuring the best possible outcomes.

Not all value is monetary.

Well said. 👍

La interacción con el dinero en una red social puede tener varios efectos psicológicos en las personas. Por un lado, puede generar una sensación de competencia y motivación para obtener más dinero y destacar en la red social. Por otro lado, puede generar ansiedad y estrés si la persona siente que no está ganando suficiente dinero o si se compara con otros usuarios que ganan más. También puede haber un efecto de deshumanización, donde las personas se enfocan más en el dinero y menos en las relaciones sociales y la interacción humana. En general, es importante tener en cuenta estos posibles efectos y ser conscientes de cómo la interacción con el dinero puede afectar nuestra salud mental y emocional en una red social.

#plebchain

#Bitcoin

#Nostr

#Zap

#Sats

#[0]

I am of the viewpoint that monetary value brings you closer and not farther away. Can you help me understand why it would erode trust? Is it the sell out factor of “here is some money, now you do as i say”? (This is so low level and low energy that its gross 🤢) nevertheless ppl do operate like this.

I think direct contributions to a person eliminates some of that. If a company wants to sponsor a creator via zaps, they have no contract or control over what they say or do. Plus anyone else can sponsor too.

Where you spend your monetary value speaks volumes of what you value and thats what i love about nostr! I think it brings us closer 🫂

i just joined last week. slowly learning the features & functions.

found the financial side. & oh crap, seems going be haves & haves nots of figure out the coins, bitcoin stuff to set up that i'm vague on. so yeah, maybe barrier to entry also an issue

Much of the old world's gears run on material money. Nostr should be a little different I think and zaps shouldn't be the end goal.