I want to be proven wrong but I haven't found that Boosting is actually relevant signaling. It's like taking your cash and lighting it on fire. If you're paying for an activity and not getting anything in return, you're subsidizing that activity.
Post by twetch#1784
It is honest signaling. Because by definition the author values their post in proportion to how much they spent.
It will be relevant to whoever wants to "tune in" to the signals that people are valuing highly.
What the chain says
- Block
- 632 878
- Time
- 2020-04-30T16:26:28Z
- Signer
- 14QXphEYn97GKtCkjChvfmastRBPsBwJdx
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#1784
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
14QXphEYn97GKtCkjChvfmastRBPsBwJdx VerifiedReplies (4)
The issue is this: Sure the signal is costly and honest. But the critical question is whether or not you're signaling what you think you're signaling.
Only empirical evidence will resolve this issue. I don't doubt it's honest..I doubt its relevance. For example, if you boost my Baemails..I will not be influenced positively. If you boost it a lot, I may be irritated you didn't just send me money.
You're implying that you can train people to value boosts. I suppose that is possible if the consensus is to use Boosts as the signaling mechanism. But I think they would prefer a fee structure such that they get paid marketing fees, not miners.
Yes. The market will determine whether it is successful.