You are significantly underestimating the costs of running infrastructure, and the expectations of users. Moderation requires significant funds as it is not a part time task. Same for development. Storage and compute are not cheap if you are trying to make it reliable. You also need to consider that many of these extremely-low-cost services break down under load and have unstable pricing, especially as seen in the recent HW crisis. Expecting lurkers to pay $1/mo is very unlikely, unless you have forced ads. The idea of even pulling our your credit card will lose 95% of people. Anyway, did Claude write this? Claude’s answers especially are not grounded in reality, and it prefers working backwards from a desired result, than to start with a question that needs answering.

Replies (1)

Thanks for the input. It’s a ballpark game. Had other people tell me I overestimate it. What I was trying to do was play around with economic models to make it sustainable, reward content creators and fuel R&D for not only the operator but also the ecosystem. I always wonder “how can money flow into the ecosystem?”. In the past I looked at content as the product being “sold”, and have that split to infrastructure and clients. But it requires too much at protocol level. Having the Relay/Blossom as the product makes it more elegant, easy to manage, and leaves a whole lot of freedom for the operator. The game becomes to attract content creators to post via your service to access the rewards and attract normal users to fuel the pot. (Tiered subscriptions make more sense, as the content creator has more to gain). The idea of using some of the money as grants for other projects is not purely “pro bono”. It can be used to obtain features and integration from clients your community wishes to have. Just ideas, with lots of holes. In the end, I just wanna spark debate over economic models, rewarding content creators and funding R&D via something else than shady grants.