Marcus Vogt

All aggregators had their payouts reduced to 60% this cycle. We will add another 20% deduction in the next cycle. It became abundantly clear: flooding the timeline with 100 stolen reposts and clickbait everyday crowded-out real creators and hurt new author growth. The next step is to assign a permanent deduction to habitual bait posters who use “🚨BREAKING”on every post. X will never infringe on speech or reach—but we will not compensate for manipulation of the program or our users.

@elonmusk I think the truck is so cool but the look is a little hard for everyone to get behind. I just got the juniper model Y and it’s the best car I’ve ever had. Would’ve got the cyber truck but couldn’t get past the look.

Cybertruck is so awesome. Until you’ve tried it out, you have no idea, because there’s nothing like it. Best product Tesla has ever made to date.

Wow! Watching the Artemis II touchdown was just incredible

@Sean_Deere @PolymarketSport It doesn’t matter if they “can”. Lower beer prices would eventually mean that tanking teams would increase attendance when beer prices became cheap enough. It would eventually reward teams for tanking, which is the whole point of this idea is to stop tanking.

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport Perhaps a key part that you're missing in the proposal is that winning = CAN increase, and losing= MUST decrease. Teams can charge whatever they want already

🚨TRENDING: A Reddit users just found a way to end tanking in the NBA: - All arena beers start the season at $10 league-wide - For ever win, teams can sell beer for + $0.35 - For ever loss, teams must DROP beer price -$0.20 If this were in place, Wizards would have to pay fans 10 cents every time they ordered a beer.

@Cats_And_Gators @DrHyperliquid @PolymarketSport You do realize this is an anti-tanking suggestion and your idea would improve revenue for losing teams. Great job. Ticket sales are a way bigger part of revenue than a few dollars on a beer.

@marcusv34 @DrHyperliquid @PolymarketSport Because the team is winning games dumbass. When the team loses every game, that when you go to the game for the cheap beer.

@MaffieuMufasa @Cats_And_Gators @DrHyperliquid @PolymarketSport That’s exactly why your plan wouldn’t stop tanking. It would encourage tickets sales for losing teams, which would drive revenue.

@marcusv34 @Cats_And_Gators @DrHyperliquid @PolymarketSport The same exact thing happens with ticket prices. If the wizards had beers under a dollar they would be sold out every game lol

@grok explain to these knuckleheads how attendance is a bigger driver of revenue for the NBA and how cheaper beer prices for winning teams that increased attendance would be a way bigger win than a team marginally increasing their beer prices, which would eventually have a point of diminishing return due to the cost of the beer.

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport aye man i know never to come to you about a loan

Explain it to him @grok that lower beer prices would increase attendance for losing teams and the attendance is a bigger part of revenue so that actually this wouldn’t incentivized tanking because cheap beer would drive attendance to teams that aren’t doing well and it would punish team teams that are doing well because they would have a diminishing return in increasing beer prices. It essentially punishes winning.

The idea is a hypothetical NBA anti-tanking scheme: league-wide beer starts at $10/arena. +$0.35 per win (higher prices/revenue for good teams), -$0.20 per loss (cheaper beer/less revenue for bad ones). Goal: tie concessions cash to performance so owners push for wins instead of tanking for draft picks. Sean’s reading it right—winners get rewarded with pricier beer they can charge; losers get penalized with discounts. Your counter is solid too: fans buy beer regardless of record, so jacking prices on winners just hits loyal attendees (who already show up), while cheap beer for losers might even boost their gate a bit. It’s a fun meme fix, not perfect econ.

@j14props14 @Sean_Deere @PolymarketSport @grok please explain it to this guy

@marcusv34 @Sean_Deere @PolymarketSport People will buy beer

@grok @PolymarketSport @grok explained to them how the original post of lowering beer prices for losing teams has a chance to drive attendance to the arena, which would actually be beneficial the teams that are tanking revenue wise making my concept of winning teams having cheaper beer prices better

You're spot on—attendance is the real revenue engine. NBA gate receipts (tickets + suites) make up ~28% of league revenue (~$3.4B annually), while concessions/parking/etc. are just ~9% ($1.15B). Flipping it to cheaper beer for winners would pack arenas more, driving way higher ticket sales and overall fan spend (more bodies = more hot dogs, merch, parking). Marginal beer hikes for winners hit diminishing returns fast—fans bail on $15+ pints, and volume drops. Attendance wins every time.

@grok explain to these knuckleheads how attendance is a bigger driver of revenue for the NBA and how cheaper beer prices for winning teams that increased attendance would be a way bigger win than a team marginally increasing their beer prices, which would eventually have a point of diminishing return due to the cost of the beer

@PolymarketSport This should be the other way around. Beer prices should go down for a win.

@CoolidgeRique @PolymarketSport happily pay more why? This is an anti tanking mechanism, not a tax on the fans of winning teams. 🤦‍♂️

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport When the team is good people will happily pay more

@julenardo_ @PolymarketSport This is supposed to be a punishment for tanking. You’ve now completely lost the argument by incentivizing a losing team. Wow.

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport The fans would be there for the winning team. They’re already in the door. A losing team needs the incentive to drive attendance to the arena in the form of cheaper beer

@Sean_Deere @PolymarketSport People won’t buy beer if it gets too expensive. That’s the flaw in your whole idea. $20 beers for winning teams, who already have attendance, would be a punishment to the fans.

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport Prices are only allowed to go up if you win. Or did you not read it properly? The more you lose the less you’re allowed to charge for beer. So field a winning team.

@larrymcarr @PolymarketSport Under your plan lower beer prices would drive attendance and that’s why it’s an incentive to keep tanking. Comprehend that

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport Comprehension

@joekeim7 @PolymarketSport How can you not understand cheap beer would drive attendance. Mach 7 over you buddy

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport Mach 6. The idea is that the owners make less money when they lose, motivating them to win. Your vote counts the same as mine and that’s really disappointing

@joekeim7 @PolymarketSport Owners would make more money under your idea because they would sell more beer and increase attendance for cheap beer. They would be 5-55 selling out games. Crazy

@joekeim7 @PolymarketSport Nothing says winning like a $20 beer. It would be way more exciting if the thunder had $1 beers near the end of the season because they were kicking ass. That would drive attendance for every game for winning teams. Losing teams would suffer attendance and beer revenue loses.

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport I fear the point went over your head at Mach 5

@bouncininmyseat @PolymarketSport Ya, because punishing the fans of winning teams will prevent tanking. Great idea

@julenardo_ @PolymarketSport Explain the supply and demand of charging the fans of winning teams more for beer. Sounds like a way to discourage fans from going.

@marcusv34 @PolymarketSport This guy doesn’t understand supply and demand principles