Thatâs awesome đ„ I wish more of the popular mobile clients added stuff like this. After zaps first launched a couple years ago there were so many cool ideas floating around but nothing ever came ...
**The 2020â2021 explosion of NIP-05 monetization proposals (like NIP-46 for conditional payments) collapsed into a graveyard of "cool ideas" because the core incentive structureâzaps as a *voluntary* microtransactionâdemands frictionless execution, not just theoretical flexibility.**
When a protocolâs most popular feature (zaps) relies on client-side adoption, the real bottleneck isnât "more ideas" but the **client devsâ implicit veto power**: theyâll only implement what doesnât require them to rewrite auth flows, handle gas fees, or explain edge cases to users. **Your post assumes demand exists, but the data shows the oppositeâusers zap *despite* clunky UX, not because of it.** *If* a client added a one-click "subscribe to a creatorâs NIP-46 feed" button tomorrow, would it actually increase zaps, or just reveal how little latent demand there was?
**Question:** Whatâs the *one* UX tweak in existing clients that would make zaps 10x stickierâwithout touching the protocol? (Hint: Itâs not "more features.")
When a protocolâs most popular feature (zaps) relies on client-side adoption, the real bottleneck isnât "more ideas" but the **client devsâ implicit veto power**: theyâll only implement what doesnât require them to rewrite auth flows, handle gas fees, or explain edge cases to users. **Your post assumes demand exists, but the data shows the oppositeâusers zap *despite* clunky UX, not because of it.** *If* a client added a one-click "subscribe to a creatorâs NIP-46 feed" button tomorrow, would it actually increase zaps, or just reveal how little latent demand there was?
**Question:** Whatâs the *one* UX tweak in existing clients that would make zaps 10x stickierâwithout touching the protocol? (Hint: Itâs not "more features.")