alexesc 🎩 on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ryan J. Shaw pfp

At last the debate arrives at our hidden presuppositions! @vijay believes that a 70% cashback parameter will promote more participation in AF than an e.g. 30% cashback parameter, and therefore will produce more revenue overall for *some* channels. I believe the number of subscribers in my channel is a result of *my* hard work, not $ALFA games. I don't need the gamification - my game is delivering cold, hard content 👊 So this is why I'm annoyed that my work is being potentially discounted down 70%, and why @vijay is annoyed *his* work to build an active subscriber base is being discounted by me in turn. Specifically, the 70% parameter would need to consistently bring in 2.6x more subscribers with the e.g. 30% parameter for @vijay's argument to hold. Who's correct? I think he and I are on the same page here -- it needs to be a configurable parameter which each channel can play with and discover what works best for themselves.

12 replies

3 recasts

23 reactions

alexesc 🎩 pfp

If they remove that cashback percentage, they'll turn an interesting model that combines elements of DeFi with subscriptions into a traditional Web2 subscription model that isn't working. There are many subscription systems through newsletters and others on Web2, where most of the money goes to the creator. Wouldn't keeping the current model, where subscribers get a share, incentivize more people to subscribe and support the platform? In the current model, I'm motivated by the content, but also by what I receive from my subscription. If it were only for the content, I'd only be subscribed to a maximum of 4 or 5 channels. I receive Alfa that I can invest in the channel I'm subscribed to, or in any other I would like to support to grow. It's a well-thought-out model. I support you, but I also receive something from that support.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Ryan J. Shaw pfp

Web2 uses credit cards and direct, month-up-front crypto transactions. The AlfaFrens model says "deposit a pool of funds for your monthly content needs, and stream it out second by second to people you find interesting". The cashback % parameter is a debatable *opinion* about how to drive discovery and adoption of this new experimental model.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

alexesc 🎩 pfp

Agree. But the AlfaFrens model, where you 'deposit funds for your monthly content needs and stream it out to interesting people,' sounds great in an ideal world with widespread adoption. However, in the current landscape, where most users are crypto enthusiasts, developers, and artists, it's difficult for professionals like my brother (a doctor) or myself (a mechanical engineer) to find subscribers or readers interested in our content. What we do find interesting about AlfaFrens is that it offers an engaging way to invest in and support content creators we enjoy, almost like a DeFi model that many of us are familiar with. By subscribing, we can help them earn money and continue publishing, while potentially getting some return on our subscription.

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

alexesc 🎩 pfp

If you remove or significantly reduce the cashback component, it feels like I'm going back to a traditional subscription model (similar to Web2 platforms). This isn't very appealing to me, as one of the main draws of AlfaFrens is the potential for earning a return on my investment while supporting creators. It's this unique Combination of support and potential profit that sets AlfaFrens apart from existing platforms.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

alexesc 🎩 pfp

I understand that Web2 relies heavily on credit cards and upfront crypto transactions. While credit cards are often a necessary evil in today's world – even I had to use one for my Warpcast subscription – my concern is specifically with the subscription model itself. If AlfaFrens removes the cashback element, it risks losing its unique appeal and becoming just another traditional subscription service.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction