Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

six pfp
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

six pfp
six
@six
For the creator it results in close to maximally efficient pricing. For the subscriber it feels like you’re not in control of the subscription, there’s no guarantee you’d have it tomorrow. This is a worse UX
0 reply
0 recast
7 reactions

Mark Fishman pfp
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

Jonny Mack pfp
Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
🤔 love this. cc @ds
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

maurelian  pfp
maurelian
@maurelian.eth
This would require an artificial cap on subscriptions, and most creators don’t want to limit reach. Wouldn’t work for a newsletter, but might for a super tier that gives you direct access to the creator (ie. the scarcity is real).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Danny pfp
Danny
@ds
Like orb.land ? Or multiple concurrent subscribers?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Garrett  pfp
Garrett
@garrett
What size group do you think this is best suited for? I immediately think about dunbar’s number and how this mechanism could potentially better narrow down the exact number for particular groups/use cases
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

huugo pfp
huugo
@huugo.eth
I’d say go full harberger tax hypersub. Own the seat on the sub and set your buy-out price — sub creator gets a daily tax. For limited size groups with a lot of community value/pride, seems like a great way to make the subscription cost and membership efficient.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction