📚 Fun fact about posts on #Lens! They can be hosted on either centralized or decentralized resources.
Decentralized ones cannot be deleted. A better name for the "Delete" button (@lenster.lens) in this case would be "Hide" because, technically, it is more accurate. Such a post can still be viewed even after deletion.
On the other side, centralized ones can be deleted if you or anyone else can access the centralized host. Or better, if a post owner can delete it, he can also change the content. So, when you see a post, you can only be sure that the content will stay the same once you know whether it is centralized or not (better not to believe in bet predictions on Lens, right?).
And since comments are technically still posts (but with a reference), we can edit them as well and make some dirty game. In general, there will be no edit tracks unless the comment's content has been uploaded to some sort of archive.
That was my first thought, but then I dug a little deeper. The trick won't work with the default Lens indexer that everyone uses nowadays because it indexes posts only once after transaction confirmation on #Polygon. So, basically, it copies your post to the indexer's DB, and later, when you use Lenster or some other client, you don't get the data from the actual post's content URL but from this DB.
I wondered why it works like that because this means the indexer's DB won't represent the actual state of the blockchain in some cases. I've written in the Lens Discord, and the answers were as follows:
discord.com/channels/918178320682733648/1080136391989669989/1080230235854864446 @cesare.lens: "To be clear the blockchain data is not changed, on-chain each post|comment has a content URI that cannot be changed. The contentURI has to point to a public location. From an immutability perspective a "purist" would argue to use an immutable data storage (e.g. IPFS) still the Lens Protocol does not stop you to use a URL you control. The indexer is driven primarily by on-chain events to determine what and when to fetch contentURI. Updating the file won't cause a chain event so simply updating the file won't work." @wagmi.lens: "We will add a refresh endpoint soon it's on the radar"
Previous posts:
#learning #notes #dev
💰 Mirror, like, and follow to get 0.123 WMATIC; limited to the first 100 users. Thanks to @wav3s.lens
📚 Fun fact about posts on #Lens! They can be hosted on either centralized or decentralized resources.
Decentralized ones cannot be deleted. A better name for the "Delete" button (@lenster.lens) in this case would be "Hide" because, technically, it is more accurate. Such a post can still be viewed even after deletion.
On the other side, centralized ones can be deleted if you or anyone else can access the centralized host. Or better, if a post owner can delete it, he can also change the content. So, when you see a post, you can only be sure that the content will stay the same once you know whether it is centralized or not (better not to believe in bet predictions on Lens, right?).
And since comments are technically still posts (but with a reference), we can edit them as well and make some dirty game. In general, there will be no edit tracks unless the comment's content has been uploaded to some sort of archive.
That was my first thought, but then I dug a little deeper. The trick won't work with the default Lens indexer that everyone uses nowadays because it indexes posts only once after transaction confirmation on #Polygon. So, basically, it copies your post to the indexer's DB, and later, when you use Lenster or some other client, you don't get the data from the actual post's content URL but from this DB.
I wondered why it works like that because this means the indexer's DB won't represent the actual state of the blockchain in some cases. I've written in the Lens Discord, and the answers were as follows:
discord.com/channels/918178320682733648/1080136391989669989/1080230235854864446 @cesare.lens: "To be clear the blockchain data is not changed, on-chain each post|comment has a content URI that cannot be changed. The contentURI has to point to a public location. From an immutability perspective a "purist" would argue to use an immutable data storage (e.g. IPFS) still the Lens Protocol does not stop you to use a URL you control. The indexer is driven primarily by on-chain events to determine what and when to fetch contentURI. Updating the file won't cause a chain event so simply updating the file won't work." @wagmi.lens: "We will add a refresh endpoint soon it's on the radar"
Previous posts:
#learning #notes #dev
💰 Mirror, like, and follow to get 0.123 WMATIC; limited to the first 100 users. Thanks to @wav3s.lens
📚 Fun fact about posts on #Lens! They can be hosted on either centralized or decentralized resources.
Decentralized ones cannot be deleted. A better name for the "Delete" button (@lenster.lens) in this case would be "Hide" because, technically, it is more accurate. Such a post can still be viewed even after deletion.
On the other side, centralized ones can be deleted if you or anyone else can access the centralized host. Or better, if a post owner can delete it, he can also change the content. So, when you see a post, you can only be sure that the content will stay the same once you know whether it is centralized or not (better not to believe in bet predictions on Lens, right?).
And since comments are technically still posts (but with a reference), we can edit them as well and make some dirty game. In general, there will be no edit tracks unless the comment's content has been uploaded to some sort of archive.
That was my first thought, but then I dug a little deeper. The trick won't work with the default Lens indexer that everyone uses nowadays because it indexes posts only once after transaction confirmation on #Polygon. So, basically, it copies your post to the indexer's DB, and later, when you use Lenster or some other client, you don't get the data from the actual post's content URL but from this DB.
I wondered why it works like that because this means the indexer's DB won't represent the actual state of the blockchain in some cases. I've written in the Lens Discord, and the answers were as follows:
discord.com/channels/918178320682733648/1080136391989669989/1080230235854864446 @cesare.lens: "To be clear the blockchain data is not changed, on-chain each post|comment has a content URI that cannot be changed. The contentURI has to point to a public location. From an immutability perspective a "purist" would argue to use an immutable data storage (e.g. IPFS) still the Lens Protocol does not stop you to use a URL you control. The indexer is driven primarily by on-chain events to determine what and when to fetch contentURI. Updating the file won't cause a chain event so simply updating the file won't work." @wagmi.lens: "We will add a refresh endpoint soon it's on the radar"
Previous posts:
#learning #notes #dev
💰 Mirror, like, and follow to get 0.123 WMATIC; limited to the first 100 users. Thanks to @wav3s.lens
lens protocol really provides a new experience in social media. I like it very much.
lens protocol really provides a new experience in social media. I like it very much.
lens protocol really provides a new experience in social media. I like it very much.
Sunk Cost Fallacy & NFTs In recent years, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have taken the art world by storm, with some digital artworks selling for millions of dollars. While NFTs have brought unprecedented attention to the digital art space, they have also raised concerns about the sunk cost fallacy. In this article, we will explore the concept of the sunk cost fallacy, how it applies to NFTs, and why it is important to let go of past investments to avoid making poor financial decisions.
What is the Sunk Cost Fallacy? The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency of individuals to continue investing in a project or asset, even if it is no longer profitable or has become a liability. This is because people tend to focus on the amount of time, money, or effort they have already invested, rather than on the potential future benefits or losses. This fallacy is prevalent in all areas of life, from personal relationships to business ventures.
How Does the Sunk Cost Fallacy Apply to NFTs? NFTs are unique digital assets that are sold on a blockchain. They have gained immense popularity in recent years, with some pieces selling for millions of dollars. However, the sunk cost fallacy can come into play when people invest in NFTs. For example, if someone purchases an NFT for a high price and its value decreases over time, they may still hold onto it because they have already invested a significant amount of money in it. This decision can lead to further losses, as they may be unwilling to let go of the asset, even though it is no longer profitable.
The Risks of Investing in NFTs While NFTs have the potential to be lucrative investments, they also come with significant risks. One of the main risks is the volatility of the market. The value of NFTs can fluctuate wildly, and there is no guarantee that an NFT will increase in value over time. Additionally, NFTs can be difficult to sell, which can make it challenging to exit an investment if necessary.
How to Avoid the Sunk Cost Fallacy in NFT Investments To avoid falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy when investing in NFTs, it is important to approach investments with a clear mind and a long-term strategy. This involves setting clear investment goals and determining when to cut losses and move on. Additionally, it is important to do thorough research before investing and to be aware of the risks involved.
One way to avoid the sunk cost fallacy is to establish a predetermined exit strategy. This means setting a specific target for when to sell an NFT, regardless of its current value. For example, an investor might decide to sell an NFT if its value drops below a certain threshold or if they have held onto it for a set period of time.
It is also important to consider diversifying investments. Investing in a variety of NFTs can help to spread out risk and minimize losses in the event that one investment does not perform as expected.
The Importance of Letting Go of Past Investments Letting go of past investments can be challenging, but it is often necessary to avoid making poor financial decisions. By holding onto an asset that is no longer profitable, individuals may continue to incur losses and miss out on more lucrative investment opportunities. Therefore, it is important to make rational decisions based on current market trends and future potential, rather than past investments.
Conclusion NFTs have brought unprecedented attention to the digital art space, but they also come with significant risks. The sunk cost fallacy can make it difficult for investors to make rational decisions about when to sell an NFT
Sunk Cost Fallacy & NFTs In recent years, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have taken the art world by storm, with some digital artworks selling for millions of dollars. While NFTs have brought unprecedented attention to the digital art space, they have also raised concerns about the sunk cost fallacy. In this article, we will explore the concept of the sunk cost fallacy, how it applies to NFTs, and why it is important to let go of past investments to avoid making poor financial decisions.
What is the Sunk Cost Fallacy? The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency of individuals to continue investing in a project or asset, even if it is no longer profitable or has become a liability. This is because people tend to focus on the amount of time, money, or effort they have already invested, rather than on the potential future benefits or losses. This fallacy is prevalent in all areas of life, from personal relationships to business ventures.
How Does the Sunk Cost Fallacy Apply to NFTs? NFTs are unique digital assets that are sold on a blockchain. They have gained immense popularity in recent years, with some pieces selling for millions of dollars. However, the sunk cost fallacy can come into play when people invest in NFTs. For example, if someone purchases an NFT for a high price and its value decreases over time, they may still hold onto it because they have already invested a significant amount of money in it. This decision can lead to further losses, as they may be unwilling to let go of the asset, even though it is no longer profitable.
The Risks of Investing in NFTs While NFTs have the potential to be lucrative investments, they also come with significant risks. One of the main risks is the volatility of the market. The value of NFTs can fluctuate wildly, and there is no guarantee that an NFT will increase in value over time. Additionally, NFTs can be difficult to sell, which can make it challenging to exit an investment if necessary.
How to Avoid the Sunk Cost Fallacy in NFT Investments To avoid falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy when investing in NFTs, it is important to approach investments with a clear mind and a long-term strategy. This involves setting clear investment goals and determining when to cut losses and move on. Additionally, it is important to do thorough research before investing and to be aware of the risks involved.
One way to avoid the sunk cost fallacy is to establish a predetermined exit strategy. This means setting a specific target for when to sell an NFT, regardless of its current value. For example, an investor might decide to sell an NFT if its value drops below a certain threshold or if they have held onto it for a set period of time.
It is also important to consider diversifying investments. Investing in a variety of NFTs can help to spread out risk and minimize losses in the event that one investment does not perform as expected.
The Importance of Letting Go of Past Investments Letting go of past investments can be challenging, but it is often necessary to avoid making poor financial decisions. By holding onto an asset that is no longer profitable, individuals may continue to incur losses and miss out on more lucrative investment opportunities. Therefore, it is important to make rational decisions based on current market trends and future potential, rather than past investments.
Conclusion NFTs have brought unprecedented attention to the digital art space, but they also come with significant risks. The sunk cost fallacy can make it difficult for investors to make rational decisions about when to sell an NFT