Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
six
@six
Wonder what a harberger tax-ish hypersub would look like. Each user pays a self assessed price to keep their subscription, but subscription can be taken over by anyone who pays more
7 replies
0 recast
35 reactions
Mark Fishman
@markfishman
in this model each person pays each month? so you can't lock in your membership by paying for months up front?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
six
@six
i pay 3 months at .001 eth/month (same as how it works today) in month 2, somebody comes and takes my subscription NFT by paying .002 eth/month for 5 months i'll get refunded my unpaid amount (so in this case, funds would have to be streamed to creator, not paid all upfront) its essentially a continuous auction for the subscription price, per NFT you would then imagine that all subscriptions end up converging to the true market price of the subscription (the highest price at which nobody else wants to come in and out"bid" existing subscriptions), as opposed to how it is today where the creator sets a price (which is economically inefficient for the creator)
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Mark Fishman
@markfishman
If payments are streaming (which I agree with), the concept of subscribing for multiple months doesn’t make sense anymore? Chances are much more likely you’d be “bumped” out before your time is up, so the subscription probably works better as an auto-renew at price
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
six
@six
the multiple month subscription is more of an accommodation to allow it being fully onchain since you can't automate payments without usage of some external bot
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
