this is not as easy as it sounds
if we did this some users wouldn't get their branch pushed to the feed or seen
we don't want to be curating content for people
Post by twetch#1933
Single branch instance != single users branch instance
What the chain says
- Block
- 623 760
- Time
- 2020-02-26T15:35:41Z
- Signer
- 1LkKZdzTNjjte6Jm6cRzBuu2WeNy1sJ96j
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#1933
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1LkKZdzTNjjte6Jm6cRzBuu2WeNy1sJ96j VerifiedReplies (3)
still not right
you would then be paying every brancher for the next branch in line
The solution probably lies in the incentive model, then.
Too much branching compared to new content creation. Leads to too much noise just because it's repeated so many times. It's not that the content itself is bad.
Actually, here's a thought... There are two types of branches. One adds value, the other merely shares the same content with no additional content.
Treat them differently.
Spread the payment over some, but not others. Incentivizes adding content.