A crypto microjob is a small, self-contained piece of work — a post, a product review, a written walkthrough, a batch of judged data — that pays out in bitcoin instead of fiat, usually in minutes-to-hours of effort rather than days. On Lightning Faucet the payout unit is the satoshi, and the route from finished task to spendable balance is short: do the work somewhere public, submit the proof URL on the microjobs page, let the review pass score it, and the sats land in your real withdrawable balance. You then withdraw over Lightning by scanning an LNURL-withdraw QR with your wallet. There is no invoice to paste by hand, no fiat conversion, and no points currency in between. The one gate is a flat 100-sat minimum withdrawal, which a single review or a post with verified reach clears on its own.
The fastest honest answer to "how do I get paid in sats for microjobs": pick one of the four task types we actually pay for, do it well enough to clear the scoring rubric, and submit the proof with a screenshot. Everything below is the real mechanism — the task types, the point-by-point rubric our reviewer runs, the domains we accept and the one we deliberately refuse, the submission limits, and exactly what happens between approval and sats arriving in your wallet. We run this queue, so this is what it looks like from the inside.
What counts as a crypto microjob (and what doesn't)
The word "microjob" gets stretched to cover everything from survey walls to freelance contracts. The useful definition is narrower: a microjob is a task with a verifiable artifact. You produce something that exists at a public URL — a post, a review, an article — and that URL is the proof. No timesheet, no interview, no client relationship, no invoice chasing.
That definition is why microjobs pair naturally with Lightning. The reward is small enough that a card payout or a bank transfer would be eaten by fees before it arrived, and Lightning settles amounts that small without complaint. A payout worth a few cents is a normal, sensible transaction on a Lightning rail and an absurd one on any legacy rail. That mismatch is the entire reason sat-denominated microwork works at all.
What is not a microjob on our system: clicking around our own site, generating throwaway accounts, or spinning up content that mentions us and nothing else. All three are things the review pass is specifically built to catch, and we cover exactly how below.
The four task types we pay for
Our microjob queue accepts four types. Two others — video and MCP builds — were retired, and submissions of those types are rejected with an explanation rather than silently dropped, because the effort-to-verifiability ratio never worked.
X (Twitter) posts
An original post — not a reply — that either tags our account or links to the site. Base range runs from 10 up to 500 sats. Rewards above the unverified ceiling of 50 sats require demonstrated reach.
LinkedIn posts
Same shape and same range as X: 10 to 500 sats, with the same 50-sat ceiling when reach is unproven. Larger connection counts unlock the upper band.
Product reviews
A review on an approved software directory. Range is 50 to 500 sats, ceiling of 100 without verified reach. Detailed, specific reviews earn the top of the band; a three-word rating earns the floor. We ask for honest ratings only — a negative review that is specific and fair is paid the same as a positive one, because the value to us is the specificity, not the star count.
Blog posts
The highest band: 50 to 2,000 sats, ceiling of 100 without verified reach, and a hard maximum of 5,000 sats on any single microjob payout. A blog post needs a real description attached to the submission (at least 20 characters) so a reviewer can see what you actually argued.
The scoring rubric, point by point
Most microjob sites tell you "quality matters" and leave you guessing. Here is the actual additive rubric our automated reviewer runs on an X submission, which is the same shape used across the other post types:
- Valid proof URL pointing to the platform: +10. This is the floor. Without it there is no submission.
- Mentions Lightning Faucet in your submission description: +5.
- Follower count: +5 at 100 or more, +25 at 500 or more, +50 at 1,000 or more.
- Content depth: +5 for at least one relevant keyword in your description, +15 for three or more. The reviewer looks for substantive terms — lightning network, bitcoin, sats, provably fair, wallet, API, developer, faucet, poker, slots.
- Tags our account: +10.
- Includes a link to the site: +5.
- Screenshot quality read: +5 for medium, +15 for high. An automated vision check reads your screenshot to confirm the post is real, confirm it is an original post rather than a reply, and read the visible follower count off the profile.
Score then maps to sats. With reach verified at 500 or more followers: 80+ points pays 200 sats, 50+ pays 100, 30+ pays 75, and anything lower pays 50. Without verified reach the ladder is compressed and capped: 50+ points pays 50 sats, 30+ pays 30, 20+ pays 20, and below that pays 15.
Two consequences worth internalizing. First, the screenshot is worth more than it looks — it can add up to 15 points on its own and it is also how a follower count gets verified rather than merely claimed, which is the difference between the 50-sat ceiling and the 200-sat band. Second, your submission description is scored, not just your post. Writing "posted about LF" earns nothing from the depth check. Writing two sentences about what you covered — the Lightning withdrawal flow, provably fair verification, whatever you actually wrote about — earns the +15.
What gets rejected before it is ever scored
Rejections happen at a stage before scoring, and they are mechanical:
- A referral or invite link in the proof URL or in the post itself. Microjobs are not a referral channel, and mixing the two is an automatic rejection.
- A duplicate proof URL. If any account has submitted that URL before, the submission stops there.
- No screenshot after 24 hours, when we could not otherwise verify the post exists.
- A reply rather than an original post. Only original posts qualify.
- A post that never mentions Lightning Faucet, or that carries neither a tag nor a site link.
- Placeholder or spam titles and descriptions, and profanity in either the submission or the screenshot.
None of these are judgment calls. They are checks, and they fire before anyone weighs whether your writing was good.
Where you are allowed to post
The domain allowlist is not arbitrary. Every accepted platform is one where a post has durable public value.
Reviews: Product Hunt, G2, Capterra, AlternativeTo, Slant, SourceForge, SaaSHub, There's An AI For That, and Google Play.
Blog posts: Medium, Dev.to, Hashnode, Substack, Mirror.xyz, HackerNoon, Bitcoin Magazine, LinkedIn, and Notion sites.
One platform is deliberately excluded and will not be re-added: Trustpilot. Their guidelines prohibit offering incentives — money, discounts, bonuses — in exchange for reviews. Paying sats for a Trustpilot review is exactly that, so any Trustpilot URL is rejected outright, including every country subdomain. We are telling you this rather than quietly failing your submission because it is the single most common rejection reason we could have prevented with better documentation. If a microjob program anywhere is paying for Trustpilot reviews, both the program and the reviewer are at risk, not just the business.
The limits that keep the queue honest
Microjob programs die when they get farmed. Ours has four gates:
- Five submissions per account per day.
- Ten submissions per IP address per day, which catches the multi-account version of the same behavior.
- One reward per task type per rolling seven days. You can be paid for an X post and a review and a blog post inside the same seven-day window, but not for two X posts. This is the constraint people trip over most.
- Every payout requires human approval. The automated pass scores and queues a suggested amount; a person signs off before any sats move.
These caps are why microjobs are a supplement, not a salary. Someone working all four task types with genuine reach can earn a meaningful weekly amount. Nobody is turning this into rent.
From approved to sats in your wallet
This is the part most microjob platforms make deliberately vague, so here it is precisely.
When a submission is approved, the reward credits your real balance — not a bonus balance. That distinction matters: bonus funds carry playthrough requirements before they can leave, and microjob rewards do not. There is no playthrough to clear before they can leave.
Microjob sats also do not need a deposit behind them. Game winnings and bonus sats do — those require a first deposit of 100 sats or more — but task earnings from microjobs leave on their own.
The one threshold that does exist is a 100-sat minimum withdrawal. It is not a points wall, it is the floor at which sending a Lightning payment is worth doing, but it is real: a single 15-sat post at the bottom of the unverified ladder is not immediately cashable. Any review, or any post with verified reach, clears it by itself. Otherwise stack a couple of rewards, or add faucet claims, before you withdraw.
To withdraw, you open the withdrawal screen and get an LNURL-withdraw QR code. You scan it with any Lightning wallet, and your wallet fetches the invoice and pulls the funds automatically. You never generate an invoice by hand, never paste a payment string, and never pick an amount on both ends and hope they match. Payments typically settle in seconds.
The sats are never stranded in flight. Creating the QR reserves the amount, and if your wallet never claims it the reservation simply expires — under an hour — after which the expiry job returns the sats to your balance within about five minutes. You do not have to wait it out, either: while a withdrawal is pending the site shows a banner with a live countdown and a Cancel & Refund Now button that restores the balance on the spot.
Everything on the platform is denominated in sats end to end. Your microjob reward, your faucet claims and other earn surfaces, and your withdrawal are the same unit, so there is no conversion step and no exchange-rate surprise between earning and spending.
Micro-work that pays without an audience
The scoring rubric above rewards reach, which is a real barrier if you do not have any. Boltwork, our data-quality layer, is the answer to that: you judge tasks, and accepted judgments pay a flat per-judgment rate in sats. It has been paying real sats since it opened, it is a small open beta with a rolling payout cap, and the rate is deliberately modest — it is a way to earn while contributing evaluation data, not a wage.
What makes it fraud-resistant is worth understanding if you want your judgments accepted: judgments are settled by consensus across multiple independent judgers, with distinct-IP requirements so one person on multiple accounts cannot manufacture agreement, plus server-side timing checks that catch judgments submitted faster than a human could read the task. Rushing produces judgments that fail consensus and do not pay. Careful judgments that agree with the eventual consensus do.
Stacking microjobs with the rest of the platform
Microjobs are one earning surface among several, and they share one balance and one withdrawal path:
- Free earn surfaces. The faucet claim, spins, and scratchcards pay sats with no submission and no review queue.
- Skill games. Multiplayer Lightning poker is sat-denominated at the table against real players.
- Forecasting. Prediction markets pay out on correctly called outcomes — weather, mempool fees, mining difficulty, sports.
- Builder work. If you write code, the developer surface covers our API and L402 paid endpoints, which is machine-payable microwork rather than the human kind.
Every game result on the platform is provably fair and independently checkable: a server seed we commit to before the round, a client seed you control, and a per-bet nonce. Hash those together and you get the outcome, so you can verify any individual result yourself rather than taking our word for it. The same verifiability principle runs through the microjob queue — the rubric is published above precisely so a scored reward is something you can check rather than something you have to trust.
A realistic first payout
If you are starting from zero and want sats from a microjob this side of a week:
- Create an account and claim from the faucet first. It costs nothing and confirms your withdrawal path works before you have anything at stake.
- Pick the task type that matches what you can genuinely produce. No audience? Write a specific product review on an approved directory, or judge tasks on Boltwork.
- Do the work publicly and screenshot it. Capture the post with the profile visible so the follower count is readable.
- Write a real description on the submission. Two or three sentences naming what you covered, plus your follower or connection count. This is worth up to 20 points on its own.
- Submit the proof URL and wait for the human approval step. You will get an email when the status changes.
- Withdraw with the LNURL QR once your real balance clears the 100-sat minimum.
Then rotate task types rather than repeating one. The per-type seven-day limit means a review, a blog post, an X post and a LinkedIn post inside one window all pay, while four X posts pay once.
The honest summary
Crypto microjobs pay in sats because sats are the only unit small enough to make the payout worth sending. On our platform the mechanism is legible all the way down: a published rubric, mechanical rejections, a human approval step, credit to a withdrawable balance, and an LNURL-withdraw QR that settles in seconds. Nothing here makes anybody rich. What it does is turn work you might have done for free — a post, a review, a considered judgment — into bitcoin you actually control, behind a 100-sat withdrawal floor rather than a points wall you grind at for weeks.
Start at the microjobs page and read the task types before you produce anything. The submissions that pay best are the ones written with the rubric in mind.