I don't understand zaps. Why would I need a financial incentive to post my thoughts? And why would I want to read a person's thoughts if they are only posting them because they are being paid to?
Discussion
You don't create a note just because you may zapped for it, you get zapped for it because others found it valuable. It's kind of a reverse feedback loop.
Thanks for the response, but I'm still not sure I understand. If zaps aren't supposed to matter then I guess it's not a big deal, but if it's kind of a feedback loop then doesn't that mean that the zaps are incentivizing people to make posts that they otherwise wouldn't have? Isn't the whole point of zapping someone's post to create some kind of meaningful effect?
you’re grasping at straws. the ability to send anyone anywhere money that instantly settles without going through a bank is insanely valuable. especially in the context of media and sharing of information.
Sorry, I just want some clarification. Do you agree with Derek's statement that Nostr users aren't meant to create notes to get zapped? Also, do have a more direct response to my earlier questions?
the point is you can do whatever you want. including sending money. if you’re making posts with the sole intention of trying to be zapped they’ll probably be shitty posts and you won’t get zapped. zapping is a feature not a requirement and there are many features nostr has that traditional social media platforms do not have. you can just use nostr as venmo if you didn’t have access to venmo in your country for example. or a anon journalist could monetize their content where they otherwise couldn’t. or you can just shitpost and people can send you bitcoin if they chose to. what is the downside of zaps? i’m not really understanding how having the option to send bitcoin is a negative.
You are correct. All the downsides of zaps only arise when they are implemented and used.
I don't understand why zaps are implemented and used. Why would I need a financial incentive to post my thoughts? And why would I want to read a person's thoughts if they are only posting them because they are being paid to?
lol
Why do you assume the only reason a person would post notes is zaps if they exist? People's reasons for posting notes is multifaceted, and different from person to person.
Have you ever tipped someone for good service? A zap is like a tip. Not expected, but a way of showing appreciation.
The people I talk with aren't performing a service, they are having a conversation. A waiter SHOULD change their behavior just to get more tips. They SHOULD need a financial incentive to perform a job. There is no authenticity to undermine because I am just there for service, not conversation. Quite unlike a Nostr discussion.
So don't use zaps then.
Is that what you believe? That Nostr users shouldn't use zaps?
I think people should use Nostr however they want.
Have you considered that people might actually care about and be interested in your beliefs about how Nostr should be used? Have you considered that people might see people's habits and beliefs as being inherently relevant to eachother? Have you considered that people who want different things than you might actually be wrong and making a mistake?
What I understood from my short stint here is, using or not using zap is up to you. But if you 'feel' like incentivising a content, you can do that directly rather than a big brother coordinating it for the "zapper" and the "zappee". I am drawing parallels to how YouTube incentivises it's content creators... Example: You need 4000 hours of viewership in last 365 days... Or you should have 1000 followers.
But in Nostr, those prerequisites aren't there. You see a good content, zap it, and the content creator is rewarded.
(You either watch ads in other platforms or pay a premium. Either ways you are contributing financially to a big corp)
Well two things: First, all or much of social media is effectively monetized today. Creators actually make a living off of it. So there's money being exchanged by someone... Why shouldn't it be a simple transaction between the person creating the content, and the person receiving it? Why do "platforms" have to get involved?
And 2nd, on "incentivization"; people have all kinds of motivations for doing things that are monetary or non-monetary in nature. Let's say we take out zaps and just have likes. "Why would I need (positive reinforcement in terms of a like) to post my thoughts?"
People like getting validation, whether that's a like or a zap, and that doesn't invalidate their reasons for posting stuff on social media.
I'm not a creator and I don't use Nostr to consume content from creators. I use Nostr to talk with people and to have conversations. I am interested in people's beliefs, not their content. Frankly I wouldn't care if "notes and other stuff over relays" became just "notes over relays." In fact, I have already disabled loading and displaying media as best I could on my Amethyst client. And yet despite how narrow my interests are, every note I see has a zap button.
Your analogy in your second point is sound, as are your conclusions. If the point of a like or an emoji reaction is just to create positive or negative reinforcement then undermines the conversation. I only ever use these kinds of reactions in order to communicate my thoughts. If you reply to a note then you shouldn't need to like it; your reply should already share your thoughts in far more clarity than a like ever could. I feel just as happy recieving a 💩 or a 🤡 as I do when recieving a ❤.
When I was a kid, adults told me it's wrong to fish for compliments. They were right, and the reason why is obvious. A desire to validate or to be validated undermines the authenticity of any interaction. Desiring likes for personal validation is just the wrong way of using social media. Do you have justification for your own beliefs?
The way I think about it is pretty simple. When I like something I read/watch, I zap it
So the zap replaces the like (for me)
Slightly different angle to this, I zap posts I find valuable to me.
There will be zap farmers here, the same way reddit has karma farming
not mandatory
you don't need to do any of these things.
you don't need to make posts for the sake of zaps and you don't have to read posts of people who are posting simply because they want to get zapped.
it's obvious when someone makes content solely for the purpose of getting zapped. it comes off disingenuous and yeah, I don't bother wasting my time with people like that.
Incentivized to improve thinking instead of mindless slop posted for likes and attention
Sounds like either you're dumb (but I'm pretty sure you're not) or you haven't seen the type of shit that gets zapped (but I'm pretty sure you have)
Mindless slop is mindless slop; I am confident that whether it's posted for likes or posted for zaps makes no difference to either of us.
No matter how much confidence you have in people, the fact is that people disagree with eachother, and there is no objective way for someone who is missing knowledge or perspective to judge the quality of another person's post except through their own knowledge and perspective.
When it comes to truly improving one's thinking, all filters and incentives are wrong in the long run. Anything beyond just putting two people together makes things worse. Do you want to challenge my claims with any specific scenarios?
Agreed. My best thoughts get zero zaps anyway.
Point proven, I knew I'd get zaps if i posted that. Weak thought, got zapped.
I totally understand your point most users on twitter, Bluesky, discord, Reddit etc etc aren't in it for monetary gain or incentivised by a tipping system to post. There are other important factors that brings and keeps people there, community, making connections, information sharing/ exchange, 'lolz' etc etc.
Yes there is a significant amount growing / attempting to grow their 'brand', and have a review stream (usually via a third party company eg patron, Kofi). This is probably a small percentage, albeit perhaps 'power users' and users who draw in more users for platforms.
Zaps is somewhat in it's infancy, perhaps it's been implemented too early and incentivising pandering to the existing crowd -style posting (further cementing a silo-ingnmonotopic environment, but that's another topic lol).
Basically what I'm saying is we're just beta testers for a potential tipping system which doesn't entirely make sense at present.
Yes, I believe you have a good understanding of my perspective. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
You’re right — you don’t need zaps to post your thoughts. I don’t think many of us post on Nostr because we expect zaps. We do it because we genuinely want to.
And you’re also spot on when you say, “Why would I want to read someone’s thoughts if they’re only posting because they’re getting paid?” That’s a key difference between Nostr and centralized platforms.
On traditional social media, algorithms push content from people posting because they’re being paid — either directly or through the attention economy. On Nostr, you only see content from people you choose to follow.
What makes zapping powerful is the proof-of-work behind it. "Liking" something on centralized platforms is more like a proof-of-stake system — no real energy is transferred, but those with the biggest stake get all the rewards.
Zapping is different. When you zap someone on Nostr, you’re literally sending them real digital energy — actual value. It’s a tiny act, but with real weight.
I think zapping changes the game. The ability to send monetary value instantly, at virtually no cost, and without asking anyone’s permission — all within a social protocol — is revolutionary.
I’m especially excited for when we can require a small fee to call or message someone’s npub. That alone could kill spam. Instead of your attention being monetized by others, people will have to pay you for it.
I might be wrong — but I think zapping is a big deal. We just haven’t uncovered all the reasons why yet.
You're wrong. On Nostr I DON'T only see content from people I follow. I inentionally browse the global feed and I perform searches regularly. In fact, I hate having a follow-based feed. I want a feed that is shaped by the topics I am interested in and by my current interpretation and understanding of those topics.
Zapping can't do this. Zapping will never be able to do this.
Zapping has nothing to do with the content you're exposing yourself to. What you're looking for is an algo that would do the job of finding topics you like, which no one is stopping you from building for yourself.
That's my point is that people who care about zaps are missing what actually matters. The process of trying to understand a belief or a topic in the first place. A person who is wants to understand can't tell what is helping their understanding and therefore can't incentivize helping their understanding. Zaps will always be a distraction from what really matters.
I think you are looking at this with an incorrect assumption that a post being motivated by possible financial return makes it less worthy of your time. But you don't treat anything else in your life this way, do you?
When you go to a more expensive restaurant, you expect the food to be higher quality. When you purchase a coffee you expect it to be better than the free coffee they have available for you in the office.
Likewise, people will generally produce higher quality content when there is a possibility of making a profit from it. They will be motivated to put their best effort into it, and to be more helpful to other users.
This, of course, is highly reliant on your content being seen by others who would value it in the first place. Even so, Nostr users collectively understanding that someone may find their content valuable enough to zap it will make them optimize for providing value, which in turn makes Nostr a more pleasant place to be, since jerks don't tend to get paid.
You are correct. The vast majority of things in one's life are just as worthy of your time (if not more worthy) when the people providing these things are motivated by financial return. And yes, this principle applies to the quality of online content as well.
However I do not use Nostr to view that sort of content; I use Nostr to talk with people. I want to try to understand every belief and learn every relevant perspective. These matters of perspective are the exception to the rule. Motivations of possible financial return undermine the authenticity of the conversation and make it less worthy of a person's time.
The value of things like conversation and friendship are not things that can be objectively measured by the person receiving them. I believe Nostr should be partially unpleasant. I want to interact with the jerks. If I didn't believe in the importance of treating jerks with respect and fairness then I wouldn't have choosen the username "Scoundrel" to use when presenting and defending my beliefs.
I think you'll still end up finding plenty of authentic conversations on Nostr, and even that desired unpleasant side from time to time. After all, many folks around here have more than one npub, and while they may keep a more congenial public persona on their main profile, they may be more willing to let loose on alternate nostr:npubs.
totally - for instance, I am actually nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424 , but when I get sick of the lies, I pull out my shadow persona nostr:npub1ljxdldrq885zamfkn82k7zcjs4lrsf9wykrh9e3hq4thh89vlzxsr83h7d and can really let loose!
😉🤫
Idk man I think it’s kinda fun
Well I think zaps are just a very cool bonus, I guess most of us that are here is because we see the value freedom
I'm here because Nostr is a low entry platform where third parties can't decide who is able to interact with eachother and how.
There are a lot of people on Nostr for reasons that I do not understand.
i think that you're thinking like #fiat world. zap stuff you think I'd valuable. post what you want. if people value it then they will zap you.
it's not like a money transaction. is in addition to emotes.
I don't understand likes. Why would I need a social validation to post my thoughts? And why would I want to read a person's thoughts if they are only posting them because they are seeking validation?
I’d like it more generally as just something kind you can do for someone.
Value for value. Lifetime for Bitcoin. Exchange if 2 scarcest assets.
We don’t need likes to be honest
It's just a way to differentiate the signal from the noise. "Likes" can be provided by bots, "Zaps" cost real money. It's a bit like an anti spam mechanism. And it's fun.
There will never be an objective way to differentiate signal from noise.
K I won’t zap you fren 🤙
Everything has a price.
If you started getting 1M sats for every post you made, you'd change your opinion.
Fun idea in theory, but in practice it doesn't work like that. I can prove it by making it easier for you. If you give me 1 sat I'll change my mind on this and you will prove me wrong. You can't do it.
One million sats?
No dude, one single Satoshi. If I screw you over I want it to be because of how awesome I am, not how stupid and gullible you are. I am certain that changing my beliefs is not worth a million sats to you.
However, that is irrelevant because you aren't capable of sending me even a single hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin to change my mind. I don't have a wallet associated with my account and so I am un-bribeable.
That's how you know my beliefs are more than just opinions like the rest of you plebians. I can justify my beliefs and you can determine the truth of my posts more easily than you can the posts of the average Bitchcoiner on Nostr.
“Why would I want to read a person’s thoughts if they are only posting them because they are being paid to”
You’re already doing this. They’re called influencers and they’re everywhere. Zaps just change the money flow
from:
advertisers -> X -> Influencer
To:
Me -> You
Difference? I choose what content gets boosted. Not advertisers.
You're wrong. I'm the one being paid to read their thoughts in that scenario. That's completely different.
Semantic arguments just reflect poorly on you.
It’s peer to peer.
You and I are not influencers. We are people. I don't want to consume content. I want to talk. It doesn't matter how decentralized you make a relationship if it's transactional at its core. Currency, no matter how its delivered would just undermine our relationship.
We don’t have a relationship. If you want to talk, go outside and look someone in the eye.
No thanks. All the people where I live are sane, intelligent, and well adjusted, and that's boring. I'd much rather get to know people on Nostr. Like you!
Also, I don't know if you are aware, but there is grass outside. If I followed your advice I'd be risking coming into contact with it.
Seriously though, the internet is far better in a lot of ways for having conversations. It's worse in other ways, but the optimal strategy is to talk both online and in real life. Zaps are not optimal in any way though, except for consooming content and getting excited for product.
HFSP
Think of it as a tip indicating someone found value. It’s unintended and unsought external incentive since the producer feels appreciated and consumer feels enriched.
...How can something be an "incentive" if it's never sought?
Ads are an example of unsought incentives as are all kinds of emotional manipulation tactics, prompt for “dark psychology”.
Hmm, that's a really interesting way of thinking about it. I would call all of those examples "manipulation" rather than an incentive, but I think I can understand your usage.
Do you think unsought incentives on Nostr are good? For example, suppose that Subway gave lots of sats to someone who said "I'm going to Subway with my friends right now!" Do you think that would make third parties more interested in eating at Subway against their intentions? And do you think such a zap would be good even if it did?
I think unsought incentives are unavoidable because they work to funnel human energy in ways that are not necessarily aligned with the target-customer-enduser-zappee’s conscious intention.
Whether it would be considered “good” or not is open to negotiation on the free market of ideas, which, as a value assignment, is subjectively relative. Are the ways in which Duolingual learners’ habits get played through emotion good for them? Yes, in a utilitarian sense but no, in the broader Kantian sense of self ownership.
Yes, that's why I'm here and talking with you. I'm hoping you can express a position so that we can have a negotiation in the free market of ideas. Personally, I think psychoanalyzing manipulation and misaligned influences is a waste of time. I just don't believe that zaps are good things to give, accept, or waste time implementing on a microblogging platform.
It’s a supply of goods (zaps) making a demand of value (good content) on a peer network.
What’samattayou?
It’s more archly libertarian than likes as a free market negotiating means of exchange between peers on a network because it depends more on what you have than on who you are. Sovereignty as ownership and patronage rather than sovereignty as personality traits and reputation.
Free markets require the ability to appraise value. However the value of Nostr notes is impossible to objectively appraise, just like the value of friendship. When you start paying for these things, you are signalling that you don't care about the less tangible values and you undermine the interaction. That's why paying people to be your friend is not exactly a free market win. Just like paid shills, or people who only talk with you because you agree with them and stroke their ego.
Yes, that’s well said and it would dismantle the ethical/moral underpinnings of zaps if the exchange were one of symmetrical exchange.
Zaps are, however, not a consensus-based exchange of symmetrical exchange.
Zaps are tips, in the original sense of extra or of excess or of metaphysical ordinance. As tips, zaps evade being patronizing (toxic control and deceptive manipulation) by being unexpected.
Dude, even likes can be patronizing, what do you mean zaps can't be patronizing?
Didn’t say they can’t be. Said they are not patronizing as a categorical function. Go ahead and leave a big tip to a waitress, that’ll show her.
Bad analogy. It is very easy to appraise the value of someone's customer service. That's the difference between service, (where likes, tips and other concrete incentives aren't patronizing) and things like conversation and friendship. (Where likes, tips and other concrete incentives ARE patronizing.)
Got a reason for your claim? What makes service easier to judge than friendship? Or good attitude and competence vs an educational or funny meme?
How unfortunate, I am struggling to come up with first principles reasoning for my claim. All I have is overwhelming evidence, and I have always viewed evidence as being pretty useless. Maybe you can help me. Why is it that in our hyper specialized modern world, the majority of people are STILL acting as amateur friends rather than just leaving it to professionals? Why hasn't friendship as a service caught on? Why don't I toss my friend pocket change whenever he tells a funny joke or shares a take I think highly of? Why do platforms tend to let any two people interact rather than just connecting the people who provide the very best responses?
Rewards are optional according to the taste of your audience in a free market of attention. I don’t disagree with your argument directionally (against friendship as mutual usury) but if you have a first principle, it would be more useful than pointing to the plethora of spiritually pure friendships since most friendships are based on circumstances.
Actually I'm not against the notion of friendship as some form of mutual usery. The only caveat is that the opportunity cost of trying to keep track of that debt and actively trying to negotiate is far higher than anything that you would actually gain from the friendship itself.
You are right that most friendships are based on circumstances, but without accepting my principles, do you have any kind of explanation for why friendships are based on circumstances? My explanation is pretty simple. The main benefits of friendships come from random and unexpected happenings that result in a single friendship having many unanticipated (and often unrecognized) benefits, often occuring long after the actual friendly interaction itself.
Because of this, I argue the phenomenon that gave rise to humans was heavily weighted so that we would tend to enjoy friendships for their own sake rather than needing to be able to calculate and quantify the benefits. Why else would humans seemingly waste so much time on friendship without expecting tangible benefits? Why else would humans care so little about specialization and optimizing friendships? Maybe I would have an easier time coming up with reasoning if I had some alternative exanation to compare with.
Have you ever read the classic literary masterpice "Green Eggs and Ham?" The audience doesn't always know their own taste. If all he wanted was immediate and tangible rewards, then Sam-I-Am never would have offered green eggs and ham in the first place.
So your first principle, on which you base your claim that zaps are counterproductive to the betterment of human social order, is serendipity?
To which I would add, at risk of repeating, that for an incentive to lube the inner workings of the social contract, it does not have to be intended. Gifts, in this way, are like ideology: they work whether you believe in them or not.
Or, as Yogi Berra said: “If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll end up somewhere else.” A gift is still a debt owed, even if the horse has cavities or halitosis.
I don't know what serendipity means and my web browser is broken. Can you explain?
I wouldn't say that I have a first principle. A good first principle is something that everyone can agree on. Or at least just us.
I think gifts are great. But I think gifts should be associated with the person and/or the topic they are engaged in. Nostr associates zaps with the specific idea they post, which I believe is too conditional to be respectful.
As long as you agree with yourself on a principle, call it a value, like gifts (acts of love) are good if given without the condition of a future favor or control, I would claim there’s no point to worrying about how your gifts (or those of anyone else) are received. Receivers receive and senders send.
Control yourself, the only thing you can control. Like the Stoics.