not really sure I understand the whining about the pro subscription along the lines of “it’s expensive if you don’t regularly get $100-300 weekly rewards.”

- it has zero effect on reach, if anything it’s just not too useful before more features are shipped.

- weekly rewards favours lower follower counts. there is a guy regularly top 10 that posts MJ photos and chatgpt platitudes, you can do it.

to me seems like not a big deal if you don’t wanna subscribe, not much downside.

Farcaster-native research: https://paragraph.xyz/@matthewb | prev. Juicebox, Nouns, RAW DAO | casting about coffee, hi-fi, and other rabbit holes

Point 2 is not well understood and it drives me nuts

The Farcaster formerly known as Kchamp. Books, beats, bodybuilding, bright ideas and beautiful things.

katherinechampagne.com

I saw someone today repeating that weekly rewards favours big accounts, just bizarro world opposite of reality

I have been so tempted to run the analysis on my acct v others just to show this is not true. Like actually pull the numbers and show how many more posts I make and likes I get.

Ugh I want this too, should I try and make it? Not sure if the data is available 🤔 

My sense is there is a sweet spot of follower count that is just right

Network matters too. The true best place to be is a low follower account beloved by big follower ones

I’d love to see a scatter plot of accounts from very low followers to very high followers against rewards board points. Not sure how indicative that would be because of variations in actual engagement but I feel like stacking many weeks on top you can kind of normalize it

pretty clear that it vastly favours small accounts, otherwise it would be impossible to place top 10 with 500-1000 followers vs. 50k+