What if spam is an incentive problem, not a moderation problem? @Liberdus bets on that idea with message tolls. I went through the docs to understand exactly how it works, step by step. Don't take my word for it. Here's the mechanism Setup: every user can set a toll, the amount someone must pay to message them. You enter it in USD. Liberdus converts it to LIB at the current rate. The minimum is $0.10. Set it to 0 and your inbox stays open. Who pays? The toll applies to users who haven't added you as a Friend or Connection, or whom you've set to tolled. So it works as a filter for strangers, not a wall around your whole inbox. Then it depends on what the recipient does. The sender can reclaim: → 100% if the message is never read → 50% if it's read but not answered → 0% if the recipient replies So the price only becomes final once the conversation actually starts. The part I find interesting, it's the reclaim. If nobody replies, the sender can get their funds back after 7 days, just by opening the chat. No button. It's silent too, the recipient isn't notified. Send another message before day 7 and the countdown resets. The trade-off is real. A toll deters spam, but it also adds friction for legitimate first contacts: a well-meaning stranger pays too. And a sender who gets no reply waits 7 days to recover the toll. Spam resistance has a cost. The question is who pays it. What this tells me about the design: attention gets a price, and that price is set by the person being contacted, not by a platform. It's a different answer to spam than moderation, not a free one. Would you charge strangers to reach you, or keep your inbox open? #SOL $SOL