Natural laws still apply. Resources aggregate and distribute. When you got into bitcoin correlates to how much bitcoin you have. It can't be any other way without being corrupt.

Which is why, all things equal, you should zap the smaller accounts that say something insightful or offer value because it will stand out more and have a greater incentivizing effect. But I agree with both of you — Twitter drags you down into the cesspool of paranoia, while Nostr clearly has different incentives. Don’t think it’s so much “positivity” as saying something everyone is thinking but hasn’t yet articulated to themselves. And that’s how it should be.

I don’t think it alters very much about any other dynamics of the network effect. So anything about size of reach and amount of engagement/zaps would probably remain true for pretty much all of social to varying degrees (depending on how that platform specifically amplifies certain content vs natural network effects.) I only think it’s alters the “balance of power” so to speak between stuff that people find valuable, and stuff that keeps them looking for the next dopamine bump reinforced by centralized platforms. Value also doesn’t mean “always positive” either even though it sounds like I sort of equate them in the OP. I only mean to point out that the incentives seem to change significantly when it’s direct micropayments from peers guiding the content, vs large platforms tailoring content to prevent people from logging out.