1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (290) ·
I think it's possible for Twetch to be free (or near free, effectively) for the user, while making money on every action, and without relying on advertisers. Although, with $0.10 likes, this model doesn't really work.
...
Replies
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (725) ·
I like this idea at 20% of the set rate.
I wonder if twetch set a lowish minimum(2-5cents?) but had a means for a user to increase it, that some people would just let it rain while still serving anti-spam purpose.
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (622) ·
Ultimately all this does is reduce the effectiveness of the incentives to push users to create valuable content.
That, I think, is the real selling point of Twetch, not now, but in the coming years.
High quality, and value is rewarded.
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (290) ·
(rough estimates)
Let's say...
miner fee + "tipping" amount($.01 or less) + Twetch fee (~$.001) = for each action
Twetch actions would increase, and chance of (most) users to break even (free) each month(lets say) would increase.
Thoughts?...
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (290) ·
...Twetch works today.
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (622) ·
Lowering costs also decreases barriers to creation on the platform.
Cost is the high pass filter of value.
Lower the cost and lower value gets through.
The real question, and I don't know the answer to this... How do you determine the equilibrium price?
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (290) ·
@908
I agree, "spam protection" is important, and it seems alot of people like the idea of potentially profiting off Twetch (which could also be a very good long term model).
I guess the model I'm bringing up would be pretty different than how...
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (290) ·
@39
I agree, without some sort of price barrier the content value would drop; and "free" does seem to produce horribly low value content.
As the the equilibrium, how about users set prices?
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (622) ·
How do you propose users set prices?
Best I can see is network fee + Twetch fee + user set signalling cost
Then, users set what they see according to the signalling cost, filtering out anything below that cost.
But there are other issues with that...
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (622) ·
So Twitter is more valuable than Twetch because it has more people tweeting?
It is not so simple, and the ability to earn on content you produce is *enabled* by the addition of that cost to other users to interact.
There is a balance to be made there.
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (6776) ·
Making it cheaper to post and interact only has upsides. There are zero downsides. A high cost is simply a barrier to entry - nothing more.
You curate your feed. Decide who to follow, who to block. The more people Twetch, the more valuable the network.
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (6776) ·
In terms of network effect I would say it's more valuable right now (even though I prefer Twetch).
The increased cost argument sounds similar to me as the fee market in BTC. Why wouldn't you prefer more people liking your content at a lower cost?
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (622) ·
As for the fee market, that's a different type of network, with different market features.
In this case, reducing noise is a legitimate benefit. In the case of Bitcoin, any paying transaction that miners are willing to accept is signal enough.
1AKHViYgBGbmxi8qiJkNvoHNeDu9m3MfPE (622) ·
If you see the entire network as a single whole, yes, Twitter is "more valuable" than Twetch.
But that's an aggregation that ignores the qualitative aspects.
On a user experience level, the signal to noise ration on Twetch is already better than Twitter.