Just a reminder that a great spam mitigation mechanism is the sender stakes the message, and the recipient has the option to slash and delete the stake 

Will repeat every time I get a spam message

The only problem is externality pricing.

Building https://negationgame.com

I couldn’t let this go and I thought of some examples where this wouldn’t work.  Legitimate business and government mail. People would probably en masse slash mail from the tax office. There have also been some invoices that I recently received from a business that had terrible service.

The amount was to low to warrant legal action, but I would definitely have slashed those.

Of course you want some spam to be taxed.

But for legitimate things you could carve out a special distinction that’s not slashable or that reduces the amount required as stake to be able to send

I'm working on a governance mechanism to answer exactly these sorts of questions. But I don't think you would need a robust system to experiment with something like this. Right now the system massively favors the sender, this would favor the attentional sovereignty of the receiver, which I think is how it should be.

But who decides what legitimate is and what is spam? If that was easy to define we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.