It is not easy to motivate people to pay with cryptocurrencies, but if they know that they can get a certain discount in that case, I have no doubt that it could have a positive effect on some.
By the way, posting multiple posts in a row is not allowed by the forum rules, so if you reply to several posts at once, you can do it in one post by adding more quotes (insert quote option).
Thanks, noted on the forum rule — I’ll reply in one post with quotes like this going forward.
On incentives: I agree discounts and owner edits can help, but at the MVP stage I’m prioritizing
data accuracy. I’m currently
trialing a verification system; once it’s stable I’ll revisit incentives with a clear moderation path.
It would be good if the whole thing were decentralized, so that someone other than the project owner could add locations.
I share the long-term goal. Fully open editing invites abuse, so for now I’ll run an
approval flow: collect proposals via a
GitHub submission form (in preparation), and I will verify & publish legitimate entries. Community involvement will expand step by step.
Perhaps access could be given to some trusted people based on their locations, because everyone can best check local information and that way the map would always be updated. As far as I can see, the last locations added were about a month ago.
Agreed —
trusted local contributors with limited rights is a sensible middle ground; I plan to introduce that after the basic flow proves stable. On recency: new listings are ongoing, but the pace is limited since it’s a
solo effort right now.
But for the long-term success of this or similar projects, one person isn’t enough because, over time, it can be tiring and because of this, ideas like this are often neglected. Maybe a mode of moderation like Wikipedia, where there are many editors, but every change requires checking and confirmation by other users.
That’s close to the direction I have in mind:
approval → limited rights for trusted contributors → broader decentralization, with checks at each step. I have
no budget to hire moderators yet, so that expansion comes later as capacity allows.
Status & next steps•
Data sources (MVP): candidates are pulled from
OSM tags and past public lists/community posts, so some entries may lack an explicit “we accept crypto” on official sites — hence verification is required.
•
Verification:
in trial now. Verified entries will receive a
“Verified” badge; unverified ones will be labeled accordingly.
•
Coverage growth: continuing to
increase the number of listed places (gradually, given it’s one-person at the moment).
•
Submission flow: a
GitHub-based submission form is being set up; I’ll review and apply valid additions/edits.
•
Community model: later, onboard
trusted local contributors with limited rights, then evaluate broader decentralization.
Thanks again for the constructive feedback — I’ll post updates here as these pieces ship (Verified badges, form launch, added locations).
