>I disagree with the business model being powerful. Think about it in terms of lifetime customer value. How many occasions is a person really going to have to u

>I disagree with the business model being powerful. Think about it in terms of lifetime customer value. How many occasions is a person really going to have to use this service? Maybe once? Twice? Even if it's $50 per message, the lifetime customer value is low. Perhaps I am used to startups having some sort freemium service that becomes difficult to monetize, while this is unique in the sense that users often would like to pay more for the same service. I would call this powerful. I understand the bottom line is how much the average user pays for the service, and on that note I'd say that the types of people that would like this service would definitely use it multiple times. >Furthermore, doesn't buying 20 messages at 10% so you're sure it will go through defeat the purpose of sending a message that you don't really want to send? No. If you do this, you know (or are 95%+ sure) that they have read your message. What you avoid is the knowledge that they know you know. This is what people go to great lengths to avoid for basic human traits such as pride and embarrassment. >I also don't see how you come to the conclusion that the recipient can't respond. If they respond, it implies they read the message. Before they respond, it's their own secret, since the sender supposedly doesn't know if the message went through. So they can choose to act as if they didn't get the message.