Michael Sayer has a plan to protect Twitter from spambots and other bad actors and wants you to know about it.
Saylor, the CEO of software company Microstrategy, became a major bitcoin maximalist in 2020 when MicroStrategy began building its bitcoin reserves, with Saylor buying more than 17,000 bitcoin tokens below $10,000.
Currently, Microstrategy is still the largest corporate holder of bitcoin, followed by Tesla’s bitcoin holdings. On Wednesday, Microstrategy stock fell to as low as $165 per share, with bitcoin trading below $30,000.
‘Orange Check’ scheme
The ‘orange check’ scheme is something the seller has been considering since at least 2021, when the executive previously suggested Bitcoin’s Lightning Network could be used in some way to “verify” accounts on Twitter. In particular, Saylor proposed orange tick mark on twitter profile To differentiate bots from real humans.
He has publicly messaged Elon Musk about his plan on at least five separate occasions, including by the likes of Twitter CEO Parag Navali, Cameron WinklevossAnd Jordan Peterson among others.
Still, Saylor made no mention of how the verification process would work, and for the time being, it appeared that his entire idea was mercifully forgotten.
Then we entered 2022, when Sailor decided it was time to dust off the plan And Twitter it, and send it to anyone who has the ability to hear it.
The Orange Check scheme is the process by which individual users would employ Bitcoin’s Lightning Network to deposit approximately $20 on Twitter. In return, these users will receive a verified orange check mark next to their name.
If someone with an orange check is found to be acting inappropriately, the trusted Twitter moderation team will take $20 as a punitive measure. Sailor’s theory is that the risk of losing this deposit would prevent spammers and other malicious actors from engaging in inappropriate behavior.
There’s just one small problem – the “orange check” scheme that persists in salar shillings is actually quite bad, and simply won’t work as intended.
Users can’t trust Twitter’s moderation process
Among the sea of reasons why orange checks are a bad idea, the first is that it misrepresents incentives. It doesn’t take an expert in game theory to work out that $20 deposit will further empower faceless Twitter moderators, while creating additional risk for ordinary users.
For those of you lucky enough not to ever dishonor Twitter’s “moderators,” let me explain how the system works.
Once Twitter finds you “guilty” of the violation, users have two options.
First Admitting your guilt and taking the punishment Twitter deems appropriate.
another have to fight your case, wait through a longer arbitration process than sentencing (during which your account remains suspended, and then found guilty again, receiving a worse sentence for contesting your innocence in the first place .
In my experience, the moderation process is a spurious war, and is unlikely to involve intelligent human intervention.
For example, on one occasion, I was convicted of violating Twitter’s “self-harm” rules when I jokingly referred to doing seppuku for some minor misstep. After explaining in the appeals process that I did not follow Bushido, did not live in feudal Japan, was not suicidal and did not own a samurai sword, the Twitter moderation team carefully reconsidered their apparently wrong decision, telling me again found guilty.
Now, if my $20 money was on the line, would the Twitter moderators be willing to be more sympathetic to my case? I feel less
Quite simply, the orange check mark would allow Twitter to profit from the misery of ordinary crypto Twitter users, and would actually encourage them to view innocence pleas with a lesser side.
There’s a reason the jury doesn’t get a bonus for delivering a guilty verdict.
Falsely flagging posts as “offensive”
In the culture war between leftists, rightists, and ordinary people just trying to come to terms with their day, there seem to be very few reasonable rules of engagement—mainly when the opposing faction tries to falsely flag an “offensive post”. Try what the other side posted.
Specifically, individuals who “false flag” an opponent’s post do so to ultimately deny them access to their social media channels. Under Sailor’s deposit scheme, it would eventually provide a new weapon and mechanism for individuals to financially hurt their opponents.
Instead of deterring bad behavior, the orange check marks will encourage it. In other words, anyone with an orange check mark will effectively have a target on their back while lying in wait as a potential victim.
Price worth paying?
The central thesis of Saylor’s proposal is that their $20 deposit scheme will deter spammers and other bad actors. The problem is that these bad actors, unlike most normal users, post on social media for profit.
How many posts does a scammer have to make to find the willing mark and big score? I don’t know, but isn’t it at least possible that these scammers see the $20 deposit as the price of doing business?
Having acquired the “legitimacy” of an orange check mark, can’t scammers try to take advantage of this perceived authenticity to perpetuate their scam? I can only speculate on these points, but there are enough questions to give me pause to ponder.
Musk doesn’t fix it
What about Elon – wouldn’t his Twitter takeover invalidate the core of my argument?
No.
Even if Musk’s acquisition were to drastically change everything on Twitter, there remain significant problems with Sailor’s plan. Incentives remain erroneous, and would require ordinary users to take a $20 leap of faith. That’s well and good until you lose your first $20.
Would you like to roll the dice again?
Thanks to his support for bitcoin and Dogecoin, Musk has become a widely recognized figure in the cryptosphere, but has to really pit himself against something really, really challenging. So far the world’s richest man has troubled himself with simple everyday problems like building a self-driving car or launching people into orbit around planet Earth.
Should Musk actually acquire Twitter, the billionaire may actually have to start working for a living.
Just imagine how you would feel if Musk “stole” your $20 for a minor (poorly conducted) Twitter violation?
Not great, and Musk must have known that.
It’s not worth the squeeze
While Saylor is one of the great advocates of bitcoin, much to admire about his commitment to the cause, this is why every time Sayer broadcasts this horrific plan, I lay my palm directly on my face. I would love to stop slapping.
So, with all due respect, I say this to you, Michael Saylor:
Please stop stalking your horrible bitcoin twitter plan. The juice from this orange check mark is not worth squeezing.
What did you think of this topic? Write to us and let us know!