Everyone hates subscriptions, but we have almost only fixed running costs. There's simply no point in offering anything good to someone who will pay us 1¢ sat at a time, when we already offer such cheap subscriptions, for 50¢/month.
If you can't afford 50¢/month, then how much would you be pay-as-go? 2¢ per month? That's negative income. Even the 50¢/month is negative income. We have to top up from donations and our own pockets.
Login to reply
Replies (4)
Your 50¢/month racket mirrors Visa's fee extortion, designed to fleece the poor.
Set your price. If its content I really want to see 50c isntna lot.
But if you are attracting buses who you wouldn't otherwise have, charging 3c a note would note would more than cover the marginal storage costs at no additional fixed cost. .
If you have a look at freemium games, it’s always funded by a few whales and the majority of users just free ride.
This goes against every intuition we have but is a reality in other places as well, like casinos and stuff.
Centralized platforms have the means to shuffle money around very easily, while we’re here asking that every user pays a fee every month and then wonder why the thing isn’t growing.
I used to think metered usage micropayments was the obvious way to go, since you could distribute content into some sort of filecoin/storj clone and everyone would just pay their fair share but now I’m leaning towards “turn free riders into CDN”.
My iPhone has more processing power and bandwidth available than most servers had a few decades ago, IPv6 and NAT hole punching have been enabling p2p applications for a while now, why not?
Then there would be less pressure on free relays by freeloaders and premium relays could justify subsiding free relays, while focusing on delivering value for the whales.
View quoted note →